Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 26th 06, 04:12 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"

In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

In the eighth paragraph, he mentions "baffling regulations."

Merriam-Webster on-line has this to say about baffle:
---
baffle
One entry found for baffle.

Main Entry: 1baf·fle
Pronunciation: 'ba-f&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): baf·fled; baf·fling /-f(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably alteration of Middle English (Sc) bawchillen to
denounce, discredit publicly
1 : to defeat or check (as a person) by confusing or puzzling :
DISCONCERT
2 : to check or break the force or flow of by or as if by a baffle
synonym see FRUSTRATE
- baf·fle·ment /-f&l-m&nt/ noun
- baf·fler /-f(&-)l&r/ noun
- baf·fling·ly /'ba-fli[ng]-lE/ adverb
---

I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.


  #3   Report Post  
Old March 26th 06, 09:09 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"


an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."


does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?


Get your check book out...

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut


No sweatty-dah.

I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.


some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife


True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.


very generous


I'm that kind of guy.

BTW, the March issue of CQ Magazine has an interesting editorial on the
rewrite of the Technician QP. It might even be on line. Zero Bias by
Rich/WV2U addresses the various characters that claim that the ARS is
being dumbed down.

I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 27th 06, 07:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
an old freind
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"


wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."


does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?


Get your check book out...

not for them

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut

No sweatty-dah.


some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife


True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.


no one will ever codify it which another reason the FCC will drop it

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.


one license would be best

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.


I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit

  #5   Report Post  
Old March 29th 06, 02:26 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"


an old freind wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?


Get your check book out...

not for them

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut

No sweatty-dah.


some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife


True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.


no one will ever codify it which another reason the FCC will drop it

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.


one license would be best

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.


I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit


It's kind of nice to be able to read another ham's opinions without
being called a liar and/or a homo.



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 29th 06, 03:44 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"


wrote:
an old freind wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:


bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit


It's kind of nice to be able to read another ham's opinions without
being called a liar and/or a homo.


yea it is nice or lazy disrepectful or a child molestor

  #8   Report Post  
Old March 29th 06, 07:33 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Baffling regulations"


K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

In the eighth paragraph, he mentions "baffling regulations."

Merriam-Webster on-line has this to say about baffle:
---
baffle
One entry found for baffle.

Main Entry: 1baf·fle
Pronunciation: 'ba-f&l


Huh...?!?! Mark Morgan phonetics?

hijacking another thread?
I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.


They don't. I understand them just fine.


you understand them then I guess we have proof your mind is truly
****ed up

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.


No.

You've been "attacked" because you make irrational, unfounded,
unsubstantiated claims about Amatuer Radio and then cry because you get
your feelings hurt when people actually demand that you provide some
form of validation for your wild assertions.


nope
he has proovided proof as has more tellingly has the FCC

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.


No, he doesn't.


sure he does Summer validates one of the thing BB has claimed but you
you are not honest to even admit that

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.


Thank-YOU, Brain, for showing us that we're all just one DNA-link
away from being the animals we once were.


always can count on your for the perspnaly attack

now stev where is your promised lawsuit?

Steve, K4YZ


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017