"Carl R. Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterance to the qrplist gang ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thom R LaCosta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:31 PM > To: Carl R. Stevenson > Cc: 'Jeff Davis'; 'Qrp List'; recipient list not shown: > Subject: RE: [qrplist] Hysteria > > Jeff Davis Said > > >> I knew that Carl's call sign sounded familiar but I didn't > put it all > >> together until seeing Dan's note on QRP-L. > >> > >> Seeing as how Carl is an Executive Director of No-Code > International, > >> and the NCI Web site very clearly states: > > > > [we all know that NCI's goal has been the elimination of > > the code test requirement] > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Besides, I publicly stated, that, if elected, I would step > down from the Board of NCI. > > But, it seems a bit "politcal" of you to have castigated the > ARRL for exclusion based on your business, when in fact the > No Code issue may have been, at the very least, part of their > resistance to you being a candidate. > > Or, could it be that you weren't politcal enough to realize > that your position in NCI would be viewed as a conflict. I was told outright in so many words that my association with NCI was NOT at issue. I believe that it's clear that my business is the excuse they used. The sad part is that my technical and regulatory qualifications could have brought considerable value to the Board. [snip] > > Sure looks like one of your agendas is No Code, which may be > a bit of a bias for someone who purported to represent > Amateur Radio in general. Everyone is entitled to their own view on the issue. I have mine. By early to mid next year, code testing will be gone and it won't just be a dead issue, it will be a dead issue from the past - and one vote on the ARRL Board would not affect the outcome of the FCC NPRM. Picking on that one (rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things facing us going into the future) seems a bit like saying, "Since were a hunter in the past, you can't possibly hold a position in the EPA." (best analogy I could come up with at the moment ...) > > The code test issue is a dead issue ... I've told folks > > that we need > > to "get over it" REGARDLESS of our individual views and get on with > > the TRULY important issue facing ham radio going into the future ... The elimination of code testing is NOT going to eliminate CW (or any other mode). > Will you say the same thing("get over it") relative to > advanced digital? I think I've made my position on advanced digital clear: 1) we need *some* (and should be adopting new things into our "bag of tricks") 2) it should not "take over the world" to the exclusion/detriment of other modes (and neither should WINLINK/PACTOR III, which *I* don't consider to be truly advanced digital) 3) it (advanced digital) should be confined to a reasonable sub-band (perhaps the "refarming" of the novice bands?) 4) WINLINK/PACTOR III "robots" should not be confined to a resonable sub-band, not allowed everywhere 5) any new bandplan should accommodate all modes in a reasonable fashion and should be such that a significant majority can support it I think that position is pretty "representative" (looking out for the interests of all) 73, Carl - wk3c ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - sponsored by www.tlchost.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------
