Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob,
Forgive me for not quoting your previous message in this reply as it
was getting long and I'm just making it longer.
Let me summarize my thoughts and then give you a less vague answer to
your real question.
The cycle of messages that precipitated the big "falling out" on QRP-
L last week was very typical. In fact, it was so typical that it
could have been scripted for all I know. It goes like this:
1) there is a crisis - 'insert your own crisis here'
2) the crisis is announced on the mailing list
3) six people respond and begin an unbelievably long thread (and sub
threads) about the crisis
4) a few people pipe in and say this crisis talk is "Off-Topic" for a
QRP list
5) four of the six respond that it's not off-topic - for chrissakes
the sky is falling - how could it be off topic?
6) "this must be the work of the ARRL - they are trying to kill ham
radio!"
7) time to bring up Incentive Licensing as "proof" that the ARRL is
trying to kill ham radio
8) "this is off-topic I tell ya"
9) about this time we all hear "if you don't like it then use your
delete key"
10) now it's time for some moron to explain how email filters work
11) more hand wringing - "where is the moderator?"
12) "we don't need no stinkin' moderator!"
13) the thread begins to die
14) the original six people who launched the long thread now begin to
send emails implying that no one but them really understand or care
about ham radio because no one wants to exhaustively debate the
crisis du jour on QRP-L.
15) about the time the crisis passes, the moderator notices the
activity on the list and makes some arcane threat about "cleaning up"
the list and putting troublemakers on double secret probation.
And so it goes. Two weeks later, there will be another such crisis
and the cycle will begin anew. About the only difference this time
around was that it spawned three new mailing lists--and I don't think
that's bad at all. Am I wrong in saying that's how new churches in
America begin - people get upset with one church and they go start
their own?
So my main point is that just because only a handful of people cared
to discuss the regulation by bandwidth issue on QRP-L doesn't NOT
imply nor should anyone infer that only a small handful of hams care
about the issue.
Now to answer your question directly - I don't support the proposal.
I don't think it's a "crisis" and as I said plainly in a previous
post, I don't think "that the regulation by bandwidth proposal is the
direct result of some "funny business" for the specific benefit of
8100 users." I have passed along my feelings on this matter to my
director who I did not vote for.
My opposition to the proposal comes because I see it as more
unnecessary diddling with the amateur service. Frankly, I'd like to
see a moratorium of 10 years on all changes to the amateur service
just to let the dust settle from all the changes of the last five years.
While I wouldn't "vote" for it, I see no crisis, conspiracy or secret
agenda in this 'boneheaded' proposal.
Vy 73,
--
Jeff, KE9V
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Behalf of Jeff Davis <[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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
