|
wrote Your comments are specifically mentioned in the NPRM, Hans - but FCC didn't act on any of them besides proposing to drop Element 1. Democracy doesn't mean you'll get your every wish, only that the wish will be considered. I'm satisfied that my wishes were considered. I'm ready to move on. Ham radio is way too much fun for me to do dismay chants about the FCC dismissing my ideas. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: ahhhhh.... I like to build antennas... I like to experiment with them... But, I am a software engineer, not a hardware engineer (some of the math interests me) and frankly, anyone who will pay attention to my rants about the either consider me a loon frown... something has to seem like "magic" to me--or I will lose faith altogether! grin WHATEVER you do, don't ask for any antenna advice from these "higher" hams on RRAP. I made that mistake. Once! There are some individuals here that can and or could answer antenna questions....I think you would find a better selection of knowledgeable individuals at... rec.radio.amateur.antenna Dan/W4NTI |
John Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... Every American (and foreigners living in America) have the very same opportunity for obtaining an amateur radio license. I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... You're not supposed to stand on them. It is quite possible that folks with a lower IQ could still be your equal or betters. If I took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of others--I could end up rather lonely... I'm guessing that you're already rather lonely. I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license... Just use your CB radio or find a newsgroup to haunt. That'll end your loneliness. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... Every American (and foreigners living in America) have the very same opportunity for obtaining an amateur radio license. I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... You're not supposed to stand on them. It is quite possible that folks with a lower IQ could still be your equal or betters. If I took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of others--I could end up rather lonely... I'm guessing that you're already rather lonely. I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license... lets see, to get a drivers license you have to be at least 16, that cuts out a lot of americans who make good hams. you have to be able to see, that cuts out some more hams. you have to be able to exert some kind of mechanical control over the vehicle, that cuts out some more. you can't have an active seziure disorder, that cuts out more... boy, sure does seem harder to get a drivers license than a ham ticket... considering the youngest extra operator recently was a 9 year old girl, i know a couple blind hams, and some who couldn't get a drivers license for other medical reasons. and then there are the idiots who lose their license because they are just too plain dumb to follow the rules, oh wait, we do have a couple of hams who fit that description also. Just use your CB radio or find a newsgroup to haunt. That'll end your loneliness. Dave K8MN i think he just found a group to haunt, and someone to keep him from being lonely! |
|
wrote Imagine, two SIX YEAR OLDS with perfect understanding of all regulations Well, maybe not "perfect understanding" --- a score of 74.285714285714285714285714285714% on the Technician and General written exams, or a score of 74.000000000000000000000% on the Extra written is considered by the FCC as adequate understanding. Beep beep! de Hans, K0HB |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: ahhhhh.... I like to build antennas... I like to experiment with them... But, I am a software engineer, not a hardware engineer (some of the math interests me) and frankly, anyone who will pay attention to my rants about the either consider me a loon frown... something has to seem like "magic" to me--or I will lose faith altogether! grin WHATEVER you do, don't ask for any antenna advice from these "higher" hams on RRAP. I made that mistake. Once! There are some individuals here that can and or could answer antenna questions....I think you would find a better selection of knowledgeable individuals at... Perhaps. They've got "thier" own little wars going on over there. I never dreamed that antenna discussions could cause such disharmony within the ARS. |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote Your comments are specifically mentioned in the NPRM, Hans - but FCC didn't act on any of them besides proposing to drop Element 1. Democracy doesn't mean you'll get your every wish, only that the wish will be considered. I'm satisfied that my wishes were considered. A nice sentiment, but FCC rules are not made democratically. I'm ready to move on. Ham radio is way too much fun for me to do dismay chants about the FCC dismissing my ideas. Same here! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. why should he tell the FCC not to do something they have decided not to do cut Suppose my Stanford-Binet IQ test score is higher than Len's. Or lower, or the same. How would his behavior here change? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think his behavior would change at all. hardly out on a limb cut Consider Paul Schleck's recent, excellent post here, Dave. I've not only considered Paul's post, I've read the expected tone in Len's reply. Dave K8MN |
wrote in message oups.com... (SNIP) Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. With all due respect, if the FCC has NOT acted on Len's age-requirement idea by now, it can be assumed to be a dead idea and rrequires no "please discard" note/memo/letter. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: "Bill Sohl" on Tues 6 Sep 2005 06:00
wrote in message roups.com... (SNIP) Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. With all due respect, if the FCC has NOT acted on Len's age-requirement idea by now, it can be assumed to be a dead idea and rrequires no "please discard" note/memo/letter. Bill, I made that "notorious/error-filled" on (horrors!) minimum age SUGGESTION on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments of Michael Deignan that was received by FCC on 13 January 1999 !!! After six and a half years have elapsed...AND the issuance of Report and Order 99-412 in late December, 1999, the FCC hasn't "acted on it" AND I've given up on it. :-) Jimmie Miccolis CANNOT give up on it. He must bring it out again and again and again AS IF it were as notorious as the 14-part message from Japan that was delivered to the U.S. State Department AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7th, 1941 !!! :-) For the rest of the readers unaquainted with the details of "Restructuring" (of Amateur Radio Service), WT Docket 98-143 contains ALL the Comments and Replies to Comments on the NPRM that led up to the final Report and Order 99-412 that established the "Restructuring." WT Docket 98-143 is still accessible on-line at the FCC's ECFS, all the filed documents, including all those filings made AFTER the official close of Comments on 15 January 1999. One Steven J. Robeson made a "reply to comments" on my document on 25 January 1999, 10 days AFTER the official close of Comments. Not a pretty thing, Robeson wanted me to abrogate my Rights of Free Speech as a citizen of the United States. Jimmie no say one thing about that. :-) Jimmie should state ALL things about a subject instead of Sinning By Omission to attempt some puerile character assassination that he thinks is "rightful" or "just." That is irritating to myself and others, but I will simply CORRECT Jimmie's ERRORS as needs be, to point out where any reader can go and check for themselves and see where the REAL errors and other wrongful things are... |
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license. Don't forget cute little 6-year-olds who passed their WRITTENS. It is a cinch that *you* haven't forgotten them. :-) Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. Of course - and based on the comments above, it's clear he still thinks it's a good idea, even though he cannot come up with a single example of problems caused by the lack of such a rule. All an IQ test shows is how well you take IQ tests. There are many different kinds of intelligence, and trying to describe them with a single number is ludicrous. OK, so now we all know that Jimmie didn't score high on a Stanford-Binet IQ test! :-) You're big on jumping to false conclusions. You might be setting yourself up to make another factual error. :-) :-) What you have there is an attempt to phish for information. Consider the possibilities: Suppose my Stanford-Binet IQ test score is higher than Len's. Or lower, or the same. How would his behavior here change? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think his behavior would change at all. With one exception: There's a very high probability that he'd find a way to use my IQ score as a way to insult and denigrate. Just as the profile predicts. So there's no logical reason to give my score. The present written tests are simple enough for two SIX YEAR OLDS to pass their license tests under the watchful eye of kindly, grandfatherly-looking VEs. Imagine, two SIX YEAR OLDS with perfect understanding of all regulations and the MATURITY to act responsibly on their own! Yeah, imagine that. If they could do it, it would seem that a guy like you could do it--but you haven't. If you recall, Len has repeatedly demonstrated a less-than- perfect understanding of Part 97 here. And as to his level of MATURITY...well, his posts here demonstrate that much better than I ever could ;-) Consider Paul Schleck's recent, excellent post here, Dave. I've not only considered Paul's post, I've read the expected tone in Len's reply. Ever notice how there are some people who are just plain nice to have around? They may not be the smartest, or the richest, or the most physically attractive, or the most accomplished, but when you spend some time with them you feel better than you did before, for all sorts of reasons. Among them are people from whom you can always learn something useful, people who are always there to help out, people with whom you can communicate freely and honestly, people who have an innate common sense, people with a good sense of humor, and a whole list of other traits and combinations of traits. People who are slow to criticize and quick to praise, slow to anger and quick to smile, etc. People who see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and then they go and get a smaller glass. People who ask little and give much. People whose example inspires and uplifts you to be a better person. You know people like that, don't you, Dave? They may not have all of the above, and they may not be perfect, but the overall effect they have on those around them is generally pleasant, uplifting and positive. Then you have folks who are exactly the opposite. You know people like that, too, I suppose. Why not spend more time on the first group and less time on the second? 73 de Jim, N2EY "Don't waste the thousand marbles" WWHD |
From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license. Don't forget cute little 6-year-olds who passed their WRITTENS. It is a cinch that *you* haven't forgotten them. :-) Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. Of course - and based on the comments above, it's clear he still thinks it's a good idea, even though he cannot come up with a single example of problems caused by the lack of such a rule. "It's clear he still thinks it's a good idea?" :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, you put bad INTERPRETATIONS on some folks' comments! :-) Suppose my Stanford-Binet IQ test score is higher than Len's. Or lower, or the same. How would his behavior here change? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think his behavior would change at all. With one exception: There's a very high probability that he'd find a way to use my IQ score as a way to insult and denigrate. Just as the profile predicts. So there's no logical reason to give my score. Wow! Jimmie turned into FUTUREMAN! Futureman...able to see what is coming before it happens! :-) Was there some "issue" concerning Stanford-Binet IQ tests?!?!? Seems to me that morse code testing does NOT involve any "IQ" ratings. Morse code skill is an ear-brain-motor-function thing NOT involving intellectual capability. Are modems "intelligent?" :-) Do code keys have "intelligence?" :-) Consider Paul Schleck's recent, excellent post here, Dave. I've not only considered Paul's post, I've read the expected tone in Len's reply. "Expected tone?" :-) Gosh, I'll be glad to reset the Bass and Treble controls, even put in an Equalizer! You know this "Argic" guy, do you Jimmie? Ever notice how there are some people who are just plain nice to have around? They may not be the smartest, or the richest, or the most physically attractive, or the most accomplished, but when you spend some time with them you feel better than you did before, for all sorts of reasons. Jimmie just feels warm and fuzzy around other PCTAs? :-) Among them are people from whom you can always learn something useful, people who are always there to help out, people with whom you can communicate freely and honestly, people who have an innate common sense, people with a good sense of humor, and a whole list of other traits and combinations of traits. Jimmie, you need to get out more, meet some NEW friends. ...or...form a NEW newsgroup, one devoted to the joys, nobility, and rapture of morse code! Wouldn't that be a heaven of Your Kind, the morse mavins. :-) "Don't waste the thousand marbles" Why? Did you lose your marbles? :-) |
From: an_old_friend on Sep 8, 6:31 pm
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. Of course - and based on the comments above, it's clear he still thinks it's a good idea, even though he cannot come up with a single example of problems caused by the lack of such a rule. and the response is so what if he does? Why is it so vital for you harp on this point? Jimmie NEEDS to win something he lost years ago...a newsgroup argument nicely designed to denigrate someone who wasn't responding to his mighty words in the way he thought...:-) Jimmie has NOT EVER explained how he is such an "expert" on children even though he has charged me that I am no "expert." I'm not an expert on kiddies of 6 years of age yet I've been around them all my life. :-) Jimmie still hasn't explained HOW six-year-olds can be "responsible" in the same way as adults. Did he teach K-12? K-6? Did he study pediatrics? He INFERS he is SOMEHOW an "expert" fully "qualified" to negatively critique others on the responsibility of kiddies. "Harping on points" is Jimmie's MISDIRECTION in posting, charging flaws in character for "not following through on 'promises' made years ago." Jimmie puts the onus on others when he doesn't get his way. [maybe he thinks too much about 'onuses'? :-) ] Why can't len have an express his opinion? Because I don't love, honor, and obey morse code. :-) Because I don't leave Jimmie feeling warm and fuzzy. :-) Because Jimmie doesn't Get His Way in here...? :-) |
|
|
|
From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am
wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. Of course - and based on the comments above, it's clear he still thinks it's a good idea, even though he cannot come up with a single example of problems caused by the lack of such a rule. "It's clear he still thinks it's a good idea?" :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, you put bad INTERPRETATIONS on some folks' comments! :-) Glass half-full. Jim no fun to be around. I think his "glass" is half-broken. Six and a half years AFTER I filed a Reply to Comments on 98-143 Jimmie still wants to ARGUE that! Report and Order 99-412 pretty well put an END to all those Comments when it came out in late December 1999. Jimmie won't let it end. Nossir, he had to keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing that. Suppose my Stanford-Binet IQ test score is higher than Len's. Or lower, or the same. How would his behavior here change? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think his behavior would change at all. With one exception: There's a very high probability that he'd find a way to use my IQ score as a way to insult and denigrate. Just as the profile predicts. So there's no logical reason to give my score. Wow! Jimmie turned into FUTUREMAN! Futureman...able to see what is coming before it happens! :-) I'm still waiting for Jim's prediction of when the next class 5 hurricane will hit. Jimmie's levee is broken and he is too busy pumping himself out to give predictions. He be flooded with "information." Was there some "issue" concerning Stanford-Binet IQ tests?!?!? Only that he thinks his score will be higher than yours. Probably will be. :-) Last Stanford-Binet IQ test I ever took was done in 1950, part of an Illinois state-wide, week-long test of many things of high school students done by the University of Illinois. Don't have any of that test result paperwork now. As I recall, my IQ was in the "average" category, whatever numbers those were. :-) Didn't mean a helluvalot then to me, doesn't now, but be sure that Jimmie WANTS those values to do his little character assassination things on his opponents in here. Seems to me that morse code testing does NOT involve any "IQ" ratings. Morse code skill is an ear-brain-motor-function thing NOT involving intellectual capability. Emulating a modem shows desire and committment. ...to the "amateur community!" :-) Are modems "intelligent?" :-) Do code keys have "intelligence?" :-) If they did they would be among the very smartest appliances. Maybe Stanford-Binet has an IQ score for modems and code keys? Consider Paul Schleck's recent, excellent post here, Dave. I've not only considered Paul's post, I've read the expected tone in Len's reply. "Expected tone?" :-) Gosh, I'll be glad to reset the Bass and Treble controls, even put in an Equalizer! You know this "Argic" guy, do you Jimmie? Argic? Something like that for a surname, one of Paul's pet peeves. Ever notice how there are some people who are just plain nice to have around? They may not be the smartest, or the richest, or the most physically attractive, or the most accomplished, but when you spend some time with them you feel better than you did before, for all sorts of reasons. Jimmie just feels warm and fuzzy around other PCTAs? :-) Yep. They boast of working out of band amateurs and collecting W1AW messages before the start of the field day contest. Morsemanship enables prescience! :-) Among them are people from whom you can always learn something useful, people who are always there to help out, people with whom you can communicate freely and honestly, people who have an innate common sense, people with a good sense of humor, and a whole list of other traits and combinations of traits. Jimmie, you need to get out more, meet some NEW friends. ...or...form a NEW newsgroup, one devoted to the joys, nobility, and rapture of morse code! Wouldn't that be a heaven of Your Kind, the morse mavins. :-) Be sure that it's a moderated group, and exclusive. Right! All them morsemen can sit around and give each other high- fives for advancing the state of the radiotelegraphy art by being the biggest, baddest, bad-asses on radio! Nobody will be there to say nay in an exclusive enclave! All will be happiness and warm fuzzies of feeling since all are champions of radiotelegraphy! "Don't waste the thousand marbles" Why? Did you lose your marbles? :-) Jim wishes to be seen as a deep thinker, often appending such nonsensical phrases at the end of his postings. Thinker? I thought for a second you were writing with a lithp. Thith ith too much... |
wrote: From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Let's also not forget that Len asked the FCC to institute an age requirement of 14 years for any class of amateur radio license. Yet when challenged to cite *any* examples of problems in the ARS caused by the licensing of young children, he could not come up with a single example. As far as anyone knows, he's never told FCC to discard that age-requirement idea. No, he hasn't. The best you'll get out of him is that he has not pursued it further. Of course - and based on the comments above, it's clear he still thinks it's a good idea, even though he cannot come up with a single example of problems caused by the lack of such a rule. "It's clear he still thinks it's a good idea?" :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, you put bad INTERPRETATIONS on some folks' comments! :-) Glass half-full. Jim no fun to be around. I think his "glass" is half-broken. Six and a half years AFTER I filed a Reply to Comments on 98-143 Jimmie still wants to ARGUE that! He pathetic mofoko. Report and Order 99-412 pretty well put an END to all those Comments when it came out in late December 1999. He pathetic mofoko. Jimmie won't let it end. Nossir, he had to keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing that. Nope. Gotta take it to the ARRL Suppose my Stanford-Binet IQ test score is higher than Len's. Or lower, or the same. How would his behavior here change? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think his behavior would change at all. With one exception: There's a very high probability that he'd find a way to use my IQ score as a way to insult and denigrate. Just as the profile predicts. So there's no logical reason to give my score. Wow! Jimmie turned into FUTUREMAN! Futureman...able to see what is coming before it happens! :-) I'm still waiting for Jim's prediction of when the next class 5 hurricane will hit. Jimmie's levee is broken and he is too busy pumping himself out to give predictions. He be flooded with "information." Jim be pathetic mofoko. Was there some "issue" concerning Stanford-Binet IQ tests?!?!? Only that he thinks his score will be higher than yours. Probably will be. :-) Last Stanford-Binet IQ test I ever took was done in 1950, part of an Illinois state-wide, week-long test of many things of high school students done by the University of Illinois. Don't have any of that test result paperwork now. As I recall, my IQ was in the "average" category, whatever numbers those were. :-) Didn't mean a helluvalot then to me, doesn't now, but be sure that Jimmie WANTS those values to do his little character assassination things on his opponents in here. See Carl's latest posting? He be blackballed. Seems to me that morse code testing does NOT involve any "IQ" ratings. Morse code skill is an ear-brain-motor-function thing NOT involving intellectual capability. Emulating a modem shows desire and committment. ...to the "amateur community!" :-) RYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRY... I'm committed. Are modems "intelligent?" :-) Do code keys have "intelligence?" :-) If they did they would be among the very smartest appliances. Maybe Stanford-Binet has an IQ score for modems and code keys? By alarm automatically shuts off after an hour. Consider Paul Schleck's recent, excellent post here, Dave. I've not only considered Paul's post, I've read the expected tone in Len's reply. "Expected tone?" :-) Gosh, I'll be glad to reset the Bass and Treble controls, even put in an Equalizer! You know this "Argic" guy, do you Jimmie? Argic? Something like that for a surname, one of Paul's pet peeves. Maybe for socks. Ever notice how there are some people who are just plain nice to have around? They may not be the smartest, or the richest, or the most physically attractive, or the most accomplished, but when you spend some time with them you feel better than you did before, for all sorts of reasons. Jimmie just feels warm and fuzzy around other PCTAs? :-) Yep. They boast of working out of band amateurs and collecting W1AW messages before the start of the field day contest. Morsemanship enables prescience! :-) W1AW. Among them are people from whom you can always learn something useful, people who are always there to help out, people with whom you can communicate freely and honestly, people who have an innate common sense, people with a good sense of humor, and a whole list of other traits and combinations of traits. Jimmie, you need to get out more, meet some NEW friends. ...or...form a NEW newsgroup, one devoted to the joys, nobility, and rapture of morse code! Wouldn't that be a heaven of Your Kind, the morse mavins. :-) Be sure that it's a moderated group, and exclusive. Right! All them morsemen can sit around and give each other high- fives for advancing the state of the radiotelegraphy art by being the biggest, baddest, bad-asses on radio! Nobody will be there to say nay in an exclusive enclave! All will be happiness and warm fuzzies of feeling since all are champions of radiotelegraphy! Where's Brian Kelly/W3RV when you don't need him? "Don't waste the thousand marbles" Why? Did you lose your marbles? :-) Jim wishes to be seen as a deep thinker, often appending such nonsensical phrases at the end of his postings. Thinker? I thought for a second you were writing with a lithp. Thith ith too much... You see the latest posting by Carl? |
|
From: on Sep 13, 8:50 pm
wrote: From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: I think his "glass" is half-broken. Six and a half years AFTER I filed a Reply to Comments on 98-143 Jimmie still wants to ARGUE that! He pathetic mofoko. Report and Order 99-412 pretty well put an END to all those Comments when it came out in late December 1999. He pathetic mofoko. I disagree. I call him simply 'hypocrite.' He says he is civil and polite, yet he keeps on bring up OLD stuff to RE-ARGUE. It's obvious he wants some kind of verbal food fight in here. Jimmie won't let it end. Nossir, he had to keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing that. Nope. Gotta take it to the ARRL I read Carl's webpage, astounded at the results. The ARRL does *NOT* rule on free speech nor does Imlay's law firm. Screum. I'm still waiting for Jim's prediction of when the next class 5 hurricane will hit. Jimmie's levee is broken and he is too busy pumping himself out to give predictions. He be flooded with "information." Jim be pathetic mofoko. On second thought, you may have something in that... :-( See Carl's latest posting? He be blackballed. Blackballed and a half by the Good Ol Boys at the League. I rather suspected that the League hierarchy would find some way to keep Carl down. His past and present doings (NCI Executive Directorship) are NOT in line with what the ARRL "leadership" wants. I've tried to point out some of the above for years, only to be met by the Zealot BELIEVERS of the League who say they can do nothing wrong. Obviously they've done something wrong, even for a PRIVATE membership organization that can toss out anyone they damn well want to. It seems, in Carl's case, they did just that. Yep. They boast of working out of band amateurs and collecting W1AW messages before the start of the field day contest. Morsemanship enables prescience! :-) W1AW. The radio voice of the League. Oyez, oyez, all hear... Where's Brian Kelly/W3RV when you don't need him? He be in onct in a while... You see the latest posting by Carl? I sort of suspected something like that would happen. I didn't expect it would be so STRONG and PETTY though. The "leadership" be entrenched and they LIKE being the "leadership." As a PRIVATE membership organization they can do anydamnthing they please. And it pleased them to keep Carl OUT. So much for their alleged "democratic principles" and "honest elections." As a definite NON-member (no amateur radio license, therefore no voting privileges in ARRL anything), all I can say is that the actions of the ARRL are just reprehensible. What the League did was contrary to Dee's insistence that "all should join and 'change it from within'" or something to that effect. That's a non sequitur. If one can't get IN, it be impossible to change a thing there. A sophistry. |
wrote: From: on Sep 13, 8:50 pm wrote: From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: cut Jimmie won't let it end. Nossir, he had to keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing that. Nope. Gotta take it to the ARRL I read Carl's webpage, astounded at the results. The ARRL does *NOT* rule on free speech nor does Imlay's law firm. Screum. cut See Carl's latest posting? He be blackballed. Blackballed and a half by the Good Ol Boys at the League. I rather suspected that the League hierarchy would find some way to keep Carl down. His past and present doings (NCI Executive Directorship) are NOT in line with what the ARRL "leadership" wants. I never thought that they would move so openly, I was wonderingif some game might be playedd with the vote tailling I've tried to point out some of the above for years, only to be met by the Zealot BELIEVERS of the League who say they can do nothing wrong. Obviously they've done something wrong, even for a PRIVATE membership organization that can toss out anyone they damn well want to. It seems, in Carl's case, they did just that. To think I had decided that if Carl won his race Id give the ARRL another chance to earn my loyality cut You see the latest posting by Carl? I sort of suspected something like that would happen. I didn't expect it would be so STRONG and PETTY though. The "leadership" be entrenched and they LIKE being the "leadership." As a PRIVATE membership organization they can do anydamnthing they please. And it pleased them to keep Carl OUT. So much for their alleged "democratic principles" and "honest elections." As a definite NON-member (no amateur radio license, therefore no voting privileges in ARRL anything), all I can say is that the actions of the ARRL are just reprehensible. What the League did was contrary to Dee's insistence that "all should join and 'change it from within'" or something to that effect. That's a non sequitur. If one can't get IN, it be impossible to change a thing there. A sophistry. |
From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am
wrote: From: on Sep 13, 8:50 pm wrote: From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: See Carl's latest posting? He be blackballed. Blackballed and a half by the Good Ol Boys at the League. I rather suspected that the League hierarchy would find some way to keep Carl down. His past and present doings (NCI Executive Directorship) are NOT in line with what the ARRL "leadership" wants. I never thought that they would move so openly, I was wonderingif some game might be playedd with the vote tailling Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. The "game" is simply Sinning By Omission. Leaving out Carl's name or any mention of why a proposed candidate was tossed gives the APPEARANCE of "orderly progress" to the League. They don't have any "dirty linen" to hang out and display so they appear to be the "good guys." [they've got a huge hamper full of that dirty linen but just don't mention it, so it APPEARS they don't have any] I've tried to point out some of the above for years, only to be met by the Zealot BELIEVERS of the League who say they can do nothing wrong. Obviously they've done something wrong, even for a PRIVATE membership organization that can toss out anyone they damn well want to. It seems, in Carl's case, they did just that. To think I had decided that if Carl won his race Id give the ARRL another chance to earn my loyality The League is NOT out to win brownie points for themselves. They are ENTRENCHED and have been so since 1914...84 years now. By all the past minutes of the BoD, by all their statements of the past half century, they've assumed a mantle of "leadership" of and by themselves. All their decisions are done by a very small cadre of "leaders" who decide among themselves "what is good for amateur radio." Oh, they do have some articles on "advancement" of the state of the art, but the majority of their decisions are done for their core membership, those who "work DX on HF with CW." With a stated 145 thousand members (in the QST Publisher's Sworn Statement of the end of July 2005), their membership is only 1 in 5 licensed United States radio amateurs. So far, they are managing to keep solvent by the publishing arm of the League, the part that pays the majority of their expenses of staying alive. [four years ago their federal income tax forms showed an income of $12.5 million...not bad for a "non-profit" entity...there's no hope in heck that membership dues are going to be any sizeable part of that income] What the League did was contrary to Dee's insistence that "all should join and 'change it from within'" or something to that effect. That's a non sequitur. If one can't get IN, it be impossible to change a thing there. A sophistry. So...how does one GET INSIDE to start changing things? It is NOT by joining and running for any office. Carl Stevenson has shown that isn't possible. Dee's and others' remarks about "joining to change things within" is just sophistry, an emotional phrase to attract membership that has nothing to do with "changes." The only way to "get inside" is to toady up to the "leadership," suck up to the BoD, and begin very slowly in all meetings to turn things around. That will take decades and will only work by human attrition, waiting for the present "leadership" to age and go SK. Right now the League is an oligarchy. A problem with oligarchies are that POWER is vested in only a few. They CONTROL. They control what is said publicly, they control everything that is printed in their "official" books and magazines. They think they control everything but they don't. The Internet has become a great "equalizer" of opinions. Worse yet, the United States government is connected to the Internet and everyone can see that Commenters in WT Docket 05-235 are not all in agreement with the League. For that matter, the League has NOT YET responded in any way to Docket 05-235 and NPRM 05-143. The matter of elimination or retention of a telegraphy test for a license is of paramount concern in the immediate future of United States amateur radio. The League can't be bothered with that. They've had TWO MONTHS since the release of the NPRM to say something. They haven't. Or they CAN'T...perhaps not able to understand anyone not going along with the decisions of a conclave of wire-pullers in Newington. |
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am wrote: From: on Sep 13, 8:50 pm wrote: From: on Sep 11, 3:45 am wrote: From: on Sep 8, 4:32 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: See Carl's latest posting? He be blackballed. Blackballed and a half by the Good Ol Boys at the League. I rather suspected that the League hierarchy would find some way to keep Carl down. His past and present doings (NCI Executive Directorship) are NOT in line with what the ARRL "leadership" wants. I never thought that they would move so openly, I was wonderingif some game might be playedd with the vote tailling Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days The "game" is simply Sinning By Omission. Leaving out Carl's name or any mention of why a proposed candidate was tossed gives the APPEARANCE of "orderly progress" to the League. They don't have any "dirty linen" to hang out and display so they appear to be the "good guys." [they've got a huge hamper full of that dirty linen but just don't mention it, so it APPEARS they don't have any] making anyone wonder what else is in the hammper I've tried to point out some of the above for years, only to be met by the Zealot BELIEVERS of the League who say they can do nothing wrong. Obviously they've done something wrong, even for a PRIVATE membership organization that can toss out anyone they damn well want to. It seems, in Carl's case, they did just that. To think I had decided that if Carl won his race Id give the ARRL another chance to earn my loyality The League is NOT out to win brownie points for themselves. They are ENTRENCHED and have been so since 1914...84 years now. By all the past minutes of the BoD, by all their statements of the past half century, they've assumed a mantle of "leadership" of and by themselves. All their decisions are done by a very small cadre of "leaders" who decide among themselves "what is good for amateur radio." Oh, they do have some articles on "advancement" of the state of the art, but the majority of their decisions are done for their core membership, those who "work DX on HF with CW." and you know they don't even do right by them (those core members) they proposed dropping the code tests standard dfurther helping to insure the Victory of NoCode With a stated 145 thousand members (in the QST Publisher's Sworn Statement of the end of July 2005), their membership is only 1 in 5 licensed United States radio amateurs. So far, they are managing to keep solvent by the publishing arm of the League, the part that pays the majority of their expenses of staying alive. [four years ago their federal income tax forms showed an income of $12.5 million...not bad for a "non-profit" entity...there's no hope in heck that membership dues are going to be any sizeable part of that income] What the League did was contrary to Dee's insistence that "all should join and 'change it from within'" or something to that effect. That's a non sequitur. If one can't get IN, it be impossible to change a thing there. A sophistry. So...how does one GET INSIDE to start changing things? It is NOT by joining and running for any office. Carl Stevenson has shown that isn't possible. Dee's and others' remarks about "joining to change things within" is just sophistry, an emotional phrase to attract membership that has nothing to do with "changes." The only way to "get inside" is to toady up to the "leadership," suck up to the BoD, and begin very slowly in all meetings to turn things around. That will take decades and will only work by human attrition, waiting for the present "leadership" to age and go SK. Right now the League is an oligarchy. And from history I don't think that will work either, look at the leadership in the COmunist Party in the USSR over the years (or read RedStrom strom rising by clancey) on how one exists in these structure A problem with oligarchies are that POWER is vested in only a few. They CONTROL. They control what is said publicly, they control everything that is printed in their "official" books and magazines. They think they control everything but they don't. The Internet has become a great "equalizer" of opinions. Worse yet, the United States government is connected to the Internet and everyone can see that Commenters in WT Docket 05-235 are not all in agreement with the League. For that matter, the League has NOT YET responded in any way to Docket 05-235 and NPRM 05-143. The matter of elimination or retention of a telegraphy test for a license is of paramount concern in the immediate future of United States amateur radio. The League can't be bothered with that. They've had TWO MONTHS since the release of the NPRM to say something. They haven't. Or they CAN'T...perhaps not able to understand anyone not going along with the decisions of a conclave of wire-pullers in Newington. |
From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 11:40 am
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. The "game" is simply Sinning By Omission. Leaving out Carl's name or any mention of why a proposed candidate was tossed gives the APPEARANCE of "orderly progress" to the League. They don't have any "dirty linen" to hang out and display so they appear to be the "good guys." [they've got a huge hamper full of that dirty linen but just don't mention it, so it APPEARS they don't have any] making anyone wonder what else is in the hammper Wear a haz-mat breathing mask if you look? :-) No. Sin by Omission is a convenient tool to convince others of a group's wonderfulness. Done right it can convince a LOT of folks that the League can do no wrong and never has. Take the simple (but very complex) history of radio. To hear the League tell it, amateurs "invented radio, pioneered HF, and did all the exceptional state-of-the-art things" in radio. They didn't and that has been proved in more than one historical text involving the beginning of radio and on through the post-WW2 period. Take another one, where the League stresses the "importance" of morsemanship to basic radio, emergency communications, and having this "pool" of experienced (i.e., morse code skilled) operators for the nation. It's all nonsense, but it pleases the core membership of the League so they just omit mention that ALL the other radio services have either dropped morse code use or never considered it when they started. The core membership thinks highly of morse code as all the 'best' things in radio. The League is representing their core membership. The League is NOT out to win brownie points for themselves. They are ENTRENCHED and have been so since 1914...84 years now. By all the past minutes of the BoD, by all their statements of the past half century, they've assumed a mantle of "leadership" of and by themselves. All their decisions are done by a very small cadre of "leaders" who decide among themselves "what is good for amateur radio." Oh, they do have some articles on "advancement" of the state of the art, but the majority of their decisions are done for their core membership, those who "work DX on HF with CW." and you know they don't even do right by them (those core members) they proposed dropping the code tests standard dfurther helping to insure the Victory of NoCode The League HAD to recognize the law AFTER it was enacted (99-412, the R&O creating "restructuring" which included 5 WPM maximum rate for all code tests). The League was AGAINST such "draconian" rate reductions BEFORE the R&O was issued. What is interesting is to look in on the 2200+ Comments on WT Docket 98-143 between 1 January 1998 and 15 January 1999 (that latter being the official cut-off date for Comments). Mixed in with the early documents are a couple of RM Comments on previous Petitions for resctructurings. The first one I found in reference to code test rate was Cecil Moore's around the middle of January 1998...describing making all code test rates 5 WPM. Cecil, then W6RCA, had been a long-time poster in this newsgroup. The League's latest Petition involves retention of the code test for Amateur Extra and they've managed to convince lots of the already-Extra that this "must" be retained. Many many comments on WT Docket 05-235 keep bringing up that. So...how does one GET INSIDE to start changing things? It is NOT by joining and running for any office. Carl Stevenson has shown that isn't possible. Dee's and others' remarks about "joining to change things within" is just sophistry, an emotional phrase to attract membership that has nothing to do with "changes." The only way to "get inside" is to toady up to the "leadership," suck up to the BoD, and begin very slowly in all meetings to turn things around. That will take decades and will only work by human attrition, waiting for the present "leadership" to age and go SK. Right now the League is an oligarchy. And from history I don't think that will work either, look at the leadership in the COmunist Party in the USSR over the years (or read RedStrom strom rising by clancey) on how one exists in these structure The ARRL is an oligarchy...but it is NOT a political party nor is there anything close to a dictatorship NOW. In terms of historical length, the ARRL lasted longer than Commununism did in the USSR! NO real parallel. :-) However, oligarchies CAN be dictatorial if they rise to a power of influencing those who don't bother looking elsewhere for information. Through its publishing arm, the ARRL influences U.S. amateur thinking greatly. The League CONTROLS everything they publish, right down to "letters to the editor" section in QST. Ultimate CONTROL. That can be the danger. In 84 years of existance, the League has done a LOT of conditioned thinking of members. Such has made many into zealots an Believers that the League can do NO real wrong. As such, these zealots and Believers have elevated the League well beyond their actual political influence organization capabilities. That is excellent for the League's survival. It's a big feedback loop: The League controls all their publishing, they publish - and sell - a LOT of amateur radio interest literature, making money for the League, then play at being a quasi-governmental democratic-principle organization having "free" elections. Remember that the League CONTROLS what the "free' election "results" are...they are NOT governed by any independent government organization as is done in federal government. Now if there is to be any comparison of organizations, try the American Olympic Committee ruled by Avery Brundage in the 1930s. Amateur to a fault, the slightest infraction of those American amateur definitions resulted in a few top-notch amateur athletes being forbidden to compete. Oligarchial, yes, dictatorial to a degree. NOT a good time for American amateur sport in spirit. That draconian insistence on PURE amateurism in Olympic sport disappeared in the reality of later decades, the IOC recognizing that sport was sport, for the enjoyment of sport...not some intense religious-zealot insistence on maintaining antiquated rules and regulations of ideals that were impossible to hold. So, Carl Stevenson is "denied" a candidacy according to some League "law" about "conflict of interest" supposedly for being a professional in radio. In all probability, the only "conflict of interest" is simply that the League hierarchy didn't find Carl "comfortable" to Them. The charge of "conflict of interest" in regards to IEEE Standards Group work...where Wi-Fi and Wi-Max do NOT conflict with amateur radio in any way. [Carl is also running for Member At Large position on Standards on the IEEE November ballot] Mainly it would seem that Carl is just "too controversial" to the League and their stand on morse code testing in amateur radio. |
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 11:40 am wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Free Elections held are to be held when? Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that Dave K8MN |
From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 5:39 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 11:40 am wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Free Elections held are to be held when? Doesn't really matter, Mark. Snarly Dave wants to make it appear that the ARRL "is run just like the federal government." Ain't so, no matter what he implies. Snarly Dave is a BELIEVER and he HATES anyone that dares sass his beloved League. Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Snarly Dave "KNOWS" that the ARRL is free, open, without blemish and ultimately "fair" to the point of being a veritable nirvana. Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN Absolutely! It is readily apparent to anyone in years of QST editions, all the filings the League made at the FCC, and in the general order of favored precedence in the ARRL publishings. Snarly Dave wants everyone to believe the League is "benevolent" to an absurdity insofar as modes are concerned. They are "objective" only in their definitions of themselves; others see them differently. Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that Snarly Dave "explained it all," Mark. All are supposed to TAKE what they receive at the hands of the League. Period. Snarly Dave ain't explained that the League simple left Carl OFF the ballot. No word why from the League. The League "doesn't have to explain anything," they just DO. That says it all. Snarly Dave doesn't like Carl Stevenson. So, don't expect any objectivity from Dave. Snarly Dave doesn't like you, either. Don't expect any objectivity on anything you write in here. Snarly Dave just plain hates my guts from years back when I didn't remove my hat, act obedient in his presence, and say "sir" a lot. Might have been different if I'd slathered gratuitous praise and admiration for his "government service" in the wilds of Africa, especially his "synchronizing RTTYs with morsemanship" in the 1980s. :-) Sorry, I don't heap praise on bull**** artists. Dave's "from the government and he's not here to help" (anyone but himself). It's as simple as that. |
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 5:39 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 11:40 am wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Free Elections held are to be held when? Doesn't really matter, Mark. Snarly Dave wants to make it appear that the ARRL "is run just like the federal government." Ain't so, no matter what he implies. No you are wrong in that I think he beleives the **** he is shoveling Snarly Dave is a BELIEVER and he HATES anyone that dares sass his beloved League. Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Snarly Dave "KNOWS" that the ARRL is free, open, without blemish and ultimately "fair" to the point of being a veritable nirvana. Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN Absolutely! It is readily apparent to anyone in years of QST editions, all the filings the League made at the FCC, and in the general order of favored precedence in the ARRL publishings. Snarly Dave wants everyone to believe the League is "benevolent" to an absurdity insofar as modes are concerned. They are "objective" only in their definitions of themselves; others see them differently. Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that Snarly Dave "explained it all," Mark. All are supposed to TAKE what they receive at the hands of the League. Period. Snarly Dave ain't explained that the League simple left Carl OFF the ballot. No word why from the League. The League "doesn't have to explain anything," they just DO. That says it all. Snarly Dave doesn't like Carl Stevenson. So, don't expect any objectivity from Dave. Snarly Dave doesn't like you, either. Don't expect any objectivity on anything you write in here. I don't Snarly Dave just plain hates my guts from years back when I didn't remove my hat, act obedient in his presence, and say "sir" a lot. Might have been different if I'd slathered gratuitous praise and admiration for his "government service" in the wilds of Africa, especially his "synchronizing RTTYs with morsemanship" in the 1980s. :-) Sorry, I don't heap praise on bull**** artists. Dave's "from the government and he's not here to help" (anyone but himself). It's as simple as that. No he isn't from the Govt. thank god for that |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 11:40 am wrote: From: an_old_friend on Sep 14, 3:01 am Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Contribute? Yes, folks may contribute of their money or of their time. One doesn't contribute for membership though. One pays for membership. Any full League member may stand for office if he receives the requisite number of nominations and has no potential conflicts of interest. Free Elections held are to be held when? You'll want to check at http://www.arrl.org Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Is it? I don't see it that way. Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN You've seen the core membership of the ARRL and you know for a fact what its view is? Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that So you know all of the circumstances and can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carl Stevenson was dealt with in a way that is different from a current Board member? Can you supply the details? Dave K8MN |
RE the subject title
Then the world blew up Later maybe -- CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be ! |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Contribute? Yes, folks may contribute of their money or of their time. One doesn't contribute for membership though. One pays for membership. Any full League member may stand for office if he receives the requisite number of nominations and has no potential conflicts of interest. obviously not Free Elections held are to be held when? You'll want to check at http://www.arrl.org I was looking for the truth not propaganda Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Is it? I don't see it that way. of course you don't that would require you to think for yourself But indeed we don't know exactly what was going through the minds of the comitte for state security Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN You've seen the core membership of the ARRL and you know for a fact what its view is? yes I have it is why I am no longer a member Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that So you know all of the circumstances and can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carl Stevenson was dealt with in a way that is different from a current Board member? Can you supply the details? Carl does that better Carl has provided assurance NO ARRL director has ever offered Carl has been declared disquailified for reasons that applied a former Vicedirector (according to that Vice Director, hans one of our regs) therefore I know for a fact he has had a different standard than at least one other canidate for ARRL office Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Contribute? Yes, folks may contribute of their money or of their time. One doesn't contribute for membership though. One pays for membership. Any full League member may stand for office if he receives the requisite number of nominations and has no potential conflicts of interest. obviously not It isn't obvious at all, Mark. There are still unknowns. We have Carl's side of things. We don't yet know what the committee at ARRL discussed and exactly how they came to their conclusions. Free Elections held are to be held when? You'll want to check at http://www.arrl.org I was looking for the truth not propaganda Never mind. You are free to reject my advice. It comes with a guarantee. If you don't like it, you receive double your old problems back. Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Is it? I don't see it that way. of course you don't that would require you to think for yourself That's exactly what I've done, Mark. I've not arrived at the same conclusions. But indeed we don't know exactly what was going through the minds of the comitte for state security There is no ARRL "committe" for state security. Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN You've seen the core membership of the ARRL and you know for a fact what its view is? yes I have it is why I am no longer a member You've actually seen the core membership? Really? When? Were they all gathered in one place? Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that So you know all of the circumstances and can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carl Stevenson was dealt with in a way that is different from a current Board member? Can you supply the details? Carl does that better No, he hasn't. He has presented some information. There is nothing in the material present by Carl to indicate that he has been treated differently. We have only Carl's side of things. Carl has provided assurance NO ARRL director has ever offered To my knowledge, the League has never accepted "because I vow that I won't". Carl has been declared disquailified for reasons that applied a former Vicedirector (according to that Vice Director, hans one of our regs) therefore I know for a fact he has had a different standard than at least one other canidate for ARRL office If you've been reading along, you'll note that I asked Hans for particulars. I wanted to know if the circumstances were the same. Hans indicated that they are not the same. You're setting us up for some wild conspiracy theory. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Actually, the League did NOT act openly. ARRL simply announced the candidates for Divisions and Carl Stevenson was left out of the list. For all those who haven't had an idea of what's been going on elsewhere in radio, the Atlantic Division, or NCI, they would have been none the wiser. Forgive my inprecision I meant more openly than I would have expected. What concerned me was playing florida like games with what is and isn't a proper ballot. they have moved more openly than I would have expected Well, the ARRL is a PRIVATE membership organization...even if they try very hard to convince folks that they are "official" and some kind of beneavolent "democratic principled, free election" kind of group. Oh yes, very PRIVATE, Leonard. Any radio amateur anywhere in the world can becoming a voting member for 39 bucks per year (some discounts apply for students and senior citizens and some surcharges are added for foreign members). Any non-licensee with an interest in amateur radio can become a non-voting Associate Member. Free elections are held and democratic principles are employed. As there are restrictions on who can run for the U.S. Congress, there are restrictions on who can run for the ARRL Board of Directors. certainly they are free to contribute, or is tha pay tribute to the ARRL, just not free to run for office as other memebers of the BoD are Contribute? Yes, folks may contribute of their money or of their time. One doesn't contribute for membership though. One pays for membership. Any full League member may stand for office if he receives the requisite number of nominations and has no potential conflicts of interest. obviously not It isn't obvious at all, Mark. There are still unknowns. We have Carl's side of things. We don't yet know what the committee at ARRL discussed and exactly how they came to their conclusions. and it is clear we will not hear from the ARRL any reasons certainly not with attitudes like yours Free Elections held are to be held when? You'll want to check at http://www.arrl.org I was looking for the truth not propaganda Never mind. You are free to reject my advice. It comes with a guarantee. If you don't like it, you receive double your old problems back. Or perhaps as you say later they just lack an understanding of the way info propagates these days I doubt that. Carl Stevenson would be seen by the League hierarchy as "controversial." That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though. hard to say that with any real assurance Is it? I don't see it that way. of course you don't that would require you to think for yourself That's exactly what I've done, Mark. I've not arrived at the same conclusions. no you have have made statements based on assumtions indeed you have drawn conclusion based on facts you have already noted are in evidence You have no bassis in fact to claim "That's quite possible. Someone who sits on the Board may have even read this newsgroup and might have seen some of Carl's choice comments about the League and about Directors. His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though." your conclusion "His words would not have disqualified him for candidacy though" has no basis in the facts it may or may not be true But indeed we don't know exactly what was going through the minds of the comitte for state security There is no ARRL "committe" for state security. sure is they are just not honest enough to call it that Remember that the ARRL has been a staunch supporter of morsemanship ever since Maxim was their president. Their core membership is made up largely of morsemen. ...or so you've been told. so we have SEEN You've seen the core membership of the ARRL and you know for a fact what its view is? yes I have it is why I am no longer a member You've actually seen the core membership? Really? When? Were they all gathered in one place? Yes I have no they were not Carl is ALSO executive director of NCI. The ARRL did NOT get what they wanted in one of the past 18 Petitions, that of having the code test retained for Amateur Extra. As far as the League is concerned for their appearance to their core membership, that has to rankle. People get used to being rankled. The rules for running for Section Director are what they are. Nothing was changed in order to exclude Carl Stevenson. just decided that that he wasn't entitled to same consideration as other memebr of the current BoD nothing more than that So you know all of the circumstances and can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Carl Stevenson was dealt with in a way that is different from a current Board member? Can you supply the details? Carl does that better No, he hasn't. He has presented some information. There is nothing in the material present by Carl to indicate that he has been treated differently. We have only Carl's side of things. sure is esp when added to the staments of Hans Carl has provided assurance NO ARRL director has ever offered To my knowledge, the League has never accepted "because I vow that I won't". Carl has been declared disquailified for reasons that applied a former Vicedirector (according to that Vice Director, hans one of our regs) therefore I know for a fact he has had a different standard than at least one other canidate for ARRL office If you've been reading along, you'll note that I asked Hans for particulars. I wanted to know if the circumstances were the same. Hans indicated that they are not the same. in what way? You're setting us up for some wild conspiracy theory. no I am not seting you up Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com