On Feb 14, 12:09�pm, Carter-k8vt wrote:
Carter-k8vt wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:49?pm, Carter-k8vt wrote:
wrote:
? ?The ARRL never reveals its budget plans to the public,
? ?despite all its Believers' claims that it is handled in a
? ?"democratic fashion" AS IF it were an arm of the guvmint.
? ?The best one can hope for is someone else getting copies
? ?of its IRS Returns and publicizes those. ?Otherwise we
? ?"common folk" would never know its a multi-million dollar
? ?"non-profit" organization.
? ?LA
OK, no problem, assume everything you say is true.

* *There WAS a website (webmaster is a ham) that DID
* *post ARRL IRS returns. *I footnoted that in one of my
* *Comments to the FCC. *Have to look it up on the CD
* *holding those documents but anyone can access it if
* *it is still up and running.

1) Is that bad? Is it any different than the NRA or any other hobby
organization?

* *The National Recovery Act is still going on?!? * :-)

2) What alternative to the ARRL do you suggest?

* *"Alternative?" *You want an instant alternative?

* *The ARRL was incorporated in 1914. *That's 83 years
* *ago. *The league was able to squash its competition
* *in the ancient days by good PR work. *I admire them
* *for their chutzpah in that.

* *From my observation the ARRL just got to believing
* *its own "sins of omissions of the truth" that it lost
* *sight of its original aims (other than being a local
* *telegraph service hacker)...then got the inner circle
* *of its staff to think they were all there through some
* *odd "divine right." *It is only a fraternal order and a
* *publisher.

* *Ain't no equivalent national organization in the USA
* *now that could compete on equal terms with them.
* *However, that is NO reason (logically) for them to
* *think they are Top Dog just because they don't have
* *the competition. *Its Believers do, but then they have
* *drifted off the mainstream into an emotional attachment
* *to fraternalistic orders.

*

Lee, thanks for the explanation...although as a pragmatist, the ARRL,
for better or worse, IS the only game in town. They are certainly not
perfect, but then, who of us are?

As to their "non-profit" status, whatever that means, I am not sure what
problem you see with that (if any).

I was referring to what some (in the past) used to imply about
their altruism. :-)

Way back I used to kid some members about the ARRL
website needing extra money for shipping charges of
purchases. The example given was going into an HRO and
being able to buy a League book and NOT pay shipping
charges...and the HRO still made a profit on that sale.
Yet the price on the ARRL website was the same AND
one had to pay extra for shipping charges. :-)

That was quickly transformed by the Zealot Believers
into some dastardly "attack" on the League by myself.
Gotta love the way some act when their ox is gored.


I did some research and, as you say, their IRS returns are on the web.
Additionally, their *AUDITED* Annual Report is on the ARRL web site for
the world to see. Granted, since Enron, audits aren't all they were
cracked up to be, but that is a national issue, nothing unique to the ARRL.

Oooops, pardon the fumble fingers. That should be "Len"

Roger that, no problem on that here... :-)

LA

On Feb 12, 10:30 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Jim Shaffer" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:35:46 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

Its in the cards. The ARS hasn't enlisted young people in numbers
since the 60's. The die-off is coming.

On Feb 14, 5:10�pm, wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:30 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:





"Jim Shaffer" wrote in message

.. .

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:35:46 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

Its in the cards. *The ARS hasn't enlisted young people in numbers
since the 60's. *The die-off is coming.

As the old romans said, "Sine die." :-)

LA

On Feb 12, 10:48 pm, wrote:
Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

He's laughing at the Gertol class of amateurs like yourself. Don't
bother disagreeing with him. His group WILL be a larger subset of the
amateur base that you'll have to convince to not laugh at you and
your senile friends.


good. maybe I'll start listening to the ham bands again.

On Feb 14, 8:10 pm, wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:30 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:





"Jim Shaffer" wrote in message

.. .

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:35:46 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

Its in the cards. The ARS hasn't enlisted young people in numbers
since the 60's. The die-off is coming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That's what the hams get for trying to keep everyone else out of it
for so long, even when they knew radio theory, and for trying to keep
it their own little exclusive club wher only a very few people are
members, even though they don't know a thing about radio theory.

Keep people out for decades. Now there's a huge gap between the "old"
hams" and the "new" hams.

which means the die-off is coming, as you say.

On Feb 13, 7:32 pm, "David G. Nagel" wrote:
james wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 10:38:16 -0800, "wavetrapper" wrote:

+++Having observed issues and changes in recent years, I think the
+++question that has to be asked at some point is whether or not the ARRL
+++should continue to attempt to influence rules, laws, etc. The money
+++that they have to be spending on legal efforts, lobbying, etc has got
+++to be significant. I think any objective observer would conclude that
+++their ability to influence legislation, FCC rules, etc in recent years
+++has been pretty dismal. Earlier in their history, the ARRL had the
+++ability to do this. Times change. In today's world, the Imperial FCC
+++chooses to do what it wants to do, selectively uses public comments
+++that support their pre-determined outcomes, fails to enforce its own
+++rules and is happy ignore factual data or public sentiment in the
+++process. Resources may be better spent in providing new and different
+++services to members rather than flush it down the commode under the
+++banner of "fighting city hall."
+++
+++Russ
+++K3Pi
***********
The FCC does as Congress dictates. Remember COngress holds the purse
strings for the FCC as well as the power to remove and appoint
commisioners. The FCC is an extension of Congress.

james

Sorry James;

Congress does hold the purse strings as well as the abililty to enact
laws which the FCC has to enforce. The President appoints commissioners
and the Senate confirms the appointment. The President can request the
resignation of any official in government but can only fire a few.

Dave N- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

however, Congress can abolish the FCC anytime they want to, if enough
votes to do so passes. They're the ones who created it in the first
place.

"------------" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 12, 10:48 pm, wrote:
Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does
change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

He's laughing at the Gertol class of amateurs like yourself. Don't
bother disagreeing with him. His group WILL be a larger subset of the
amateur base that you'll have to convince to not laugh at you and
your senile friends.


good. maybe I'll start listening to the ham bands again.



NOT ME I TWO STOOPID


Dloyd Lavies, Sweat Lord and Talk Show Buffoon
"In the Domestic Rear"

"------------" wrote in message
oups.com...
which means the die-off is coming, as you say.


I wish my body odor would die off!






Dloyd Lavies, Sweat Lord and Talk Show Buffoon
"In the Domestic Rear"

------------ wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:32 pm, "David G. Nagel" wrote:
james wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 10:38:16 -0800, "wavetrapper" wrote:
+++Having observed issues and changes in recent years, I think the
+++question that has to be asked at some point is whether or not the ARRL
+++should continue to attempt to influence rules, laws, etc. The money
+++that they have to be spending on legal efforts, lobbying, etc has got
+++to be significant. I think any objective observer would conclude that
+++their ability to influence legislation, FCC rules, etc in recent years
+++has been pretty dismal. Earlier in their history, the ARRL had the
+++ability to do this. Times change. In today's world, the Imperial FCC
+++chooses to do what it wants to do, selectively uses public comments
+++that support their pre-determined outcomes, fails to enforce its own
+++rules and is happy ignore factual data or public sentiment in the
+++process. Resources may be better spent in providing new and different
+++services to members rather than flush it down the commode under the
+++banner of "fighting city hall."
+++
+++Russ
+++K3Pi
***********
The FCC does as Congress dictates. Remember COngress holds the purse
strings for the FCC as well as the power to remove and appoint
commisioners. The FCC is an extension of Congress.
james
Sorry James;

Congress does hold the purse strings as well as the abililty to enact
laws which the FCC has to enforce. The President appoints commissioners
and the Senate confirms the appointment. The President can request the
resignation of any official in government but can only fire a few.

Dave N- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

however, Congress can abolish the FCC anytime they want to, if enough
votes to do so passes. They're the ones who created it in the first
place.


To abolish the FCC, Congress would have to recende the Communications
Act of 1934 as amended. Then they would have to create a replacement. Do
you really want a bunch of political hacks doing that? Do you?

Dave N

On Feb 27, 3:49 pm, dxAce wrote:
------------ wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:10 pm, wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:30 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

"Jim Shaffer" wrote in message

.. .

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:35:46 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

Don't bother disagreeing with me; it is the
large subset of the amateur base that you have to convince and,
unfortunately, that will take a while to change IF it ever does change.

And when you're all dead, nobody will remember you, or if they do
they'll laugh their asses off.

So you depend upon some sort of massive die-off to validate your license
class?

Its in the cards. The ARS hasn't enlisted young people in numbers
since the 60's. The die-off is coming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what the hams get for trying to keep everyone else out of it
for so long, even when they knew radio theory, and for trying to keep
it their own little exclusive club wher only a very few people are
members, even though they don't know a thing about radio theory.

Keep people out for decades.

No one was kept out. They kept themselves out through their refusal to learn the
code

wrong. I studied for the code and written test. They kept me and
others out by giving required to get your ham liscence phony ham tests
in addition to the real test, claiming it was also part of the real
test, marking correct answers wrong, and then claiming that wrong
answers were the correct answers.

question "What does ATV stand for as relating to amateur radio?"

My answer: "ATV stands for amateur tv, also known as ham tv"

They marked it wrong and then told me that "the correct answer is an
All-Terrain Vehhicle that is equipped with an amateur radio set. There
is't any such thing as amateur tv or ham tv.

THAT IS purposely keeping people out.