<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a spot on reply Jeff. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Vy 72; Bob w9ya > > 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 <[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/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
