|
|
I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL membership. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, I am somewhat surprised at your naivete. The power and authority for the "executive committee" to screen and block any candidate "for the good of the service" was vested in a few individuals in the ARRL a few years back. Read the BOD minutes and the by-laws. This applies all the way down to the SM, SCM, EC level. That was about the time that the BOD minutes was removed from the QST mag. reason: to save on printing costs. I specifically protested through channels and on this forum at the time that there was no peer review, no appeals process, no redress, no system of checks and balances to prevent a runaway "star chamber". When an organization reaches this level of tyranny under the guise of legitimacy, no reform is possible. Clay N4AOX |
From: Dave Heil on Sep 14, 8:44 pm
wrote: From: Dave Heil snarling on Sep 14, 1:17 pm wrote: From: on Sep 14, 4:08 am Dee Flint wrote: "K?B" wrote in message wrote http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/ . . . unbelievable . . !! I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL membership. But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest? Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that part of the spectrum. What you mean "millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in 'conflict with our interests' in the ham bands"? Since WHEN has there been any "great interest" in the World Above 30 MHz to the League? The core membership of the League is interested only in "working DX on HF with CW." :-) Plenty of League members operate the bands above 30 MHz. Quantify "PLENTY," snarly Heil. Give us some NUMBERS. "Snarly"=anyone who disagrees with Leonard H. Anderson. I've worked hundreds of them over the past four years via SSB/CW/FM on the VHF/UHF bands. Tsk. Still VAGUE. "Hundreds" isn't quantified sufficiently well. Also, the "millimeter" bands are not the centimeter bands such as 70 cm. Perhaps you've heard of the monthly QST VHF/UHF column. It has been around for decades. I have decades worth of QST Magazine and ARRL Handbooks featuring construction articles on VHF/UHF antennas, amplifiers and the like. Goodie, you can be an "elmer" and teach all those newcomers ALL ABOUT the MILLIMETER BANDS!! :-) You have a virtual library all about MILLIMETER BANDS! You're out of touch, old timer. :-) :-) Har. Har. Har. It isn't really funny. You don't have much of an idea what is going on in the VHF/UHF ham bands, do you? Anyone on the WEST coast would NOT know what is going on on the east coast. MILLIMETER BANDS are rather line-of-sight. I was operating and maintaining multi-channel 1.8 GHz microwave radio relay equipment in the fall of 1954. Where were you? Me? I was in kindergarten, prepping myself to take over from geezers who'd be out of steam at some point. Tsk, you've been out of steam for years. :-) Did you have a pressing need for steam? Get a steam iron and go to it on the ironing board... I was testing X-Band (8 to 12 GHz) airborne radar at Hughes in 1957. Where were you? Second grade, Highlands Elementary School, Lake Worth, Florida, prepping myself to take over from geezers who'd eventually run out of steam. Ah, but you KNEW ALL ABOUT those MILLIMETER BANDS then, dincha? I was doing lab tests on 4mm waveguide components in 1960 at the STL research lab. Where were you? I'd just finished the fifth grade or was starting the sixth at Harrison School, Lexington, Kentucky and was still prepping from geezers like you--guys who'd eventually run out of steam. Oh, my, you sure MOVED around a lot? On the run? Someone after you? My late friend Lawrence Evans W8CAL was on the ham bands from Moundsville begininng in 1931. Tsk. All your friends are "late?" Too bad. I was testing microwave components and systems, including designing part of an active air-coupled test set on Ku-Band (18 to 24 GHz) for the A-6 Intruder at Micro-Radionics in the early 1960s. Where were you? How early? In 1963 I was fourteen and was already a ham. We already know what you weren't doing. You weren't a radio amateur. I was a RADIO PROFESSIONAL. Had been one for 11 years by 1963. Got my First Phone in 1956. I did the entirety of design of an L-band (1 to 2 GHz) Mode 4 capable transponder test set RF section at Teledyne Electronics in '78. Where were you? I was already a seasoned DXer at age 29. Wowwwwwww. (big Ben Stein "wow") Are you wanting some kind of medal? Certificate (suitable for framing)? How about your Life Story made into a motion picture? I know a few over at the Writer-Producer's Guild in Burbank...should I drop them a "treatment" or precis of your story? I owned a home in Cincinnati, Ohio. And that has WHAT to do with amateur radio, "seasoned old DXer?" Well, in 1972 I was still in the Air Force. Tsk. In 'Nam "in-country" working MARS radios? :-) Snarly? I've not yet begun to be snarly, wizened one. Tsk. You've been snarly since your fabulous "synchronizing RTTYs with morse" from the wilds of Africa... :-) I've left plenty out too, so if you're ever in the mood to play another game of "mine's bigger than yours", I'll happily oblige. No doubt "yours" is "bigger." No doubt it can throw a lot farther. :-) It's probably been "in" more things than mine, too! :-) You should use the royal "we" more. That way you can wave your "we-we" at everyone to "prove your point." I operated plenty of satellite gear, from large fixed installations to suitcase TACSAT equipment. Woweee...regular James Bomb sorta stuff, ey? I'll ask to see if Steven Segal is available to play you in your Life Story motion picture. Might take a while, though, agents wanna have "lunch" and all that. Please present any evidence that you've uncovered which outlines what ARRL members think about the frequencies above 30 MHz. Any at all will do. How about over 2000 Comments on WT Docket 05-235? How about over 2000 Comments on WT Docket 98-143? Please, break them down for us by ARRL member and non-ARRL member. Larry Klose already did much of that on Docket 98-143. I'm still doing that on Docket 05-235 (which won't close until end of October and 14th November). So far YOUR numerics are vague to "hundreds" but NOW you want ME to be terribly, terribly specific as to membership? :-) Thank you for your efforts in justifying your previously unqualified and unquantified statement. My my you really ARE ****ed off, aincha, snarly Dave? Tsk, tsk. My bad...said unkind things about Big Brother in Newington. :-) Snarly Dave, go to the grill and fork yourself. You're done. :-) |
|
CCW N4AOX wrote: I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL membership. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, I am somewhat surprised at your naivete. The power and authority for the "executive committee" to screen and block any candidate "for the good of the service" was vested in a few individuals in the ARRL a few years back. Read the BOD minutes and the by-laws. This applies all the way down to the SM, SCM, EC level. That was about the time that the BOD minutes was removed from the QST mag. reason: to save on printing costs. I specifically protested through channels and on this forum at the time that there was no peer review, no appeals process, no redress, no system of checks and balances to prevent a runaway "star chamber". When an organization reaches this level of tyranny under the guise of legitimacy, no reform is possible. It is possible but it involves many lawyers (and years of work) and deep reasearch in the IRS Code esp in this case i should think 501 (c) 3 given the ARRL's nonprofit status Clay N4AOX |
My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as they thought. But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue. If it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's one or the other. Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your hair. And, of course if doesn't do much for League recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot, but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys club has been doing things. Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant abuse of power. Rick Tannehill - W7RT NCI Board Member Life Member - ARRL wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... wrote http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/ . . . unbelievable . . !! I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL membership. 73, de Hans, K0HB But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest? Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that part of the spectrum. The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type of position cannot become a member of the BoD. The problem is that the League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level. That piece of information is necessary to get an insight into the problem. I didn't find it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Rick" wrote in message ... Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant abuse of power. Keeping the shennanagins related to the recent ARESCOM/WL2K scam in mind, and that poor horse ( http://www.hamblog.com/?p=28 ) at ARRL HQ, I'd say that the present board members should all be forced to squeeze ( or not ) through the eye of the same needle that Carl could not pass through. I'm not saying that they were wrong to exclude Carl, but rather that it is wrong for them to exclude themselves - from the same 'conflict of interest' filter they have just ( correctly ) applied to Carl. Let's see the WinLink and SCS connected board members out on the tiles, too. - A refreshing administrative enema that should not be limited to the board, but should encompass the ARRL executives as well. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com ---------- HamPoll.Com http://www.hampoll.com ---------- DigiBlog http://www.uspacket.org/digiblog/ |
wrote: From: Dave Heil snarling on Sep 14, 1:17 pm Off the top of my head, those who post here who cannot run for ARRL Director: "Off the top of your head" is just air. You've said NOTHING about "join the League and work for change from WITHIN!" :-) What you do if the hierarchy doesn't let you? Have YOU run for any League post? And why should we care? Just like most of what you say in here is "off the top of your head," it is merely AIR. Go fight with someone you think you win message points from. That's YOUR style, mighty AMATEUR radio warrior. He forgot his own disqualifying virtue. #4. Those who complain about the elimination of Section News from QST. |
Rick wrote:
My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as they thought. I agree! But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue. No, they haven't. It's clear that FCC was pushing for reductions in Morse Code testing long before NCI existed. And there are strong no-code-test directors on the ARRL BoD. If it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's one or the other. No, it isn't. There are other possibilities. One is that Carl's manner *in the past* may have upset some people. Or his *past* comments about ARRL and many aspects of ham radio. There's also his leapfrogging over the field organization and going straight for Director. Personally I don't see any conflict between his present employment and being an ARRL director. The commitees and Board see different. Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your hair. It might stifle some. But the alleged "humiliation" can be avoided by not going public until the Board accepts your candidacy. And, of course if doesn't do much for League recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot, but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys club has been doing things. Seems that way. OTOH, there could be other factors. Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant abuse of power. Can I be an NCI Board Member? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com