<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Jeff and the gang;
I have left your response below intact. I have quoted form it, so I felt it should remain unmolested. Part One: Long answer to a short question. That's o.k too. I do not mind at all. And this is not the qrp-l, so long answers and debate should be fine here. I am pretty sure you *might have felt* you answered my question below. However I am very sure that I did not catch your answer. I *did* get the part about crisis all the time from your first message. And again here below. I also got the part about how the ARRL is trying. I similarly got the part about how you apparently feel this was a lot of words about conspiracy theories and such, and not much to back them up. Again from both messages. I did not ask about your feelings concerning conspiracy theories however, unless you meant to say that you feel this concern over the bandwidth proposal is nothing more than conspiracy theory talk. Is that it ? I *did* however ask about how YOU felt concerning the ARRL proposal and whether it represented a crisis. It's perfectly o.k. not to answer that directly. You do not owe me an answer. I am merely curious. I am just a simple Midwestern raised fella. Perhaps I just need a simple answer. Short sentences and the like. Hi Hi... Part Two: For what it is worth, whether "..the ARRL is trying to kill radio..." was *not* the point of my question. Nor have I seen a message that makes that the *central theme*, here or on qrp-l or elsewhere to date. I have seen many messages trying to implicate that someone else has said that however. Instead what I have seen in people's messages is that the ARRL has been stupid from time to time and specifically concerning the probable impact of their proposals. And also about how the ARRL handles matters surrounding their proposals, both now and in the past. Much of it is historical, but serves a point. If nothing more than trying not to repeat mistakes in behavior, intent, or results. <- This, in and of itself, is NOT a declaration of anything other than what you call "...their fair share of boneheaded decisions..." . i.e. If you agree the ARRL has been "boneheaded", why does it become a "conspiracy theory" for someone to point out more recent mistakes and the related and quite obviously unseemly behavior? If, as you state below. "...how they go about the business ... is always subject to question" is what you believe; Why is it that you have a "tough time believing that the regulation by bandwidth proposal is the direct result of some "funny business" " ? Part Three: This matter has been handled by the ARRL as a pushed through project. Of course it is some kind of "funny business" when the ARRL handles such things in such ways. It stinks of "funny business". It is replete of all the classic earmarks of "funny business". You are a smart fella, surely you can read up on this if you choose. And you are smart enough to see stink when it is there to be seen. But enough of what I feel should be obvious. And more to the point: I think that all hams will have to admit at some point, now or later, that the ARRL bandwidth proposal is a radical change. A change from mode-based federal regulation to self-regulation by bandwidth is at the very least disruptive in ways no other ARRL proposal has been in over 70 years. And because of that I do *disagree* with you specifically about whether this is just a mistake not worth "hold(ing) ... against them". Part Four; And I will now answer your question to me: I *do* remember a time or two when things were not a "crisis" state in ham radio. In fact I remember two time periods I have lived at least part way through when things were complacent and threats were few and far between. The first lasted for in the first case almost 20 years right up until the adoption of the ARRL proposed incentive licensing changes. These changes were a crisis for both American ham radio manufacturers and the hams remaining on the air that were their clients. I remember not being able to go to the store for several years and buy a decent rig because they were not being manufactured. The second time was when the Japanese manufacturers finally got their act together enough to build half-way decent rigs AND the one or two remaining American manufacturers began seeing a somewhat revitalized market 10 years later. Things had started to improve and our numbers started growing again. And those hams that wanted to continue could at least enjoy what they had before as operating space and activities by studying for their license. This latest proposal will not allow me to continue unmolested from robots prowling the areas I now inhabit. And I also will not be able to take a test and regain that unmolested territory. Summary: So I guess I do not subscribe to your theory on this is a normal time of "crisis" in ham radio. This is not a normal proposal with minimal impact. It is entirely possible that we are living through the same events and see them quite differently. That is o.k, with me. In fact I would not have it any other way. Vy 72; Bob w9ya P.S.... Watch this space here for a counter proposal. I am not content to leave this matter lie, without something positive int he way of rebuttal to the ARRL's proposal. > > Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bob, my supposition is that there's always a "crisis" in amateur > radio. Do you recall a time when folks were generally happy about the > hobby and there were zero threats to its continuation? I didn't think > so. :-) > > I happen to believe that organizations, like people, operate with > their own self interests at heart. I go to work every day because I've > grown quite fond of eating and living indoors. The ARRL is no > different. They are in the business of preserving amateur radio. It's > in their own self interest for the hobby to thrive. If ham radio dies > we lose a hobby but they lose their jobs... so I would challenge the > sanity of anyone who asserts that the ARRL is "trying to kill ham > radio". > > Of course, how they go about the business of being "of, by and for the > radio amateur" is always subject to question and I believe they have > made their fair share of boneheaded decisions about how to best do > that. But then, I've made a few mistakes in my lifetime too so I don't > tend to hold it against them like some do. On top of that, I'm pretty > immune to conspiracy theories and have a tough time believing that the > regulation by bandwidth proposal is the direct result of some "funny > business" for the specific benefit of 8100 users--an inference that > was made on QRP-L when things there were running at a fever pitch. > > Vy 73 de Jeff > > > On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:42 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Hey Jeff and the gang; >> >> Well Jeff, your remarks below of course begs this question: >> >> Do *YOU* feel that there is not a "crisis" with the ARRL at the >> current >> time concerning their "bandwidth proposal" and how it is/was being >> handled >> ? >> >> Vy 72; > > -- > Jeff, KE9V > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Behalf of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Submissions: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe qrplist in body Hopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message Zerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.net Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
