Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip?
Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie". Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the pot" is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: >All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not >welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take >action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd >arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good >situation. > >When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there >is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL >and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what >else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule >interpreters? > >How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree >with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? > >As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the >answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. >If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? > >It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are >involved in that! > >Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they >happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need >to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an >interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition >for a change. > >As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health >for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients >that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the >interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must >contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. > >Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > >Chuck Mayfield wrote: > > At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: > > > >> My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds > >> of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to > >> their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not > >> do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their > >> place. > >> > > > > > > So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? > > It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, > > but I do not appreciate activists who have to "take action" when > > nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, > > why don't you run for office or something? > > > > Don't take this personally, please. > > > > 73, > > Chuck AA5J > > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: >1/12/2008 2:04 PM
