[ARRL-OK] Verbiage

[Kim Elmore]

Hi Lloyd,

At 06:35 AM 10/29/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>So you don't like ARES, RACES, MARS being appreciated in a bill to protect 
>amateur radio stations from being penalized ... in short, Mary, Bill and 
>all the rest would be subject to the bill ... it just reads too broadly.

I don't see how you read that into what has been written.  What I and 
another object to is identifying a subgroup within the amateur service as 
particularly deserving of protection. This is a slippery slope the amateur 
service cannot afford to go down.

A resolution of appreciation is very different from a written law. your 
intentions are no doubt good, but they would have what amount to unintended 
consequences that could be potentially very harmful to the amateur service. 
Never underestimate this possibility; having lived in Boulder County, CO, 
I've seen exactly this sort of thing blow up in amateur's faces and once 
the fuse is lit, there's no going back.

>What does it take to be involved in RACES, ARES, etc.?  In this County, 
>one form and a checkin on a two meter net once in a while.  Of course, you 
>can do more.  During a disaster, it makes more sense to know that I have a 
>potential resource right next door than to bring resources in from two 
>counties away.  As it stands now, with a ham population of 100 locally, I 
>have 10 on the roster.
>
>The issue is the bill.  I focused on the public service aspect of amateur 
>radio.

That's fine!  Wonderful, in fact! Public service is our most visible 
contribution to those outside the service. My point is that your particular 
focus should be a preamble to why you want the bill changed and should not 
be part of the bill itself. You focus is eminently appropriate, but should 
not be contained within the bill itself.

>I hope you take the same time it took to reply to my message blasting my 
>choice of words to contact your legislator to support the hams who are not 
>affiliated.

You bet!

>My letter is not intended to disparage anyone.

Clearly not, but your *intent* cannot be deduced from the wording you 
proposed. Someone without your good will and knowledge might (and probably 
would) interpret the wording in a way that would ultimately be harmful to 
the amateur service.

>It is intended to bring to the Legislator an issue that concerns me and 
>hook it to Homeland Security, an issue he will understand, in simple language.

Your motivation is laudable and unassailable. Such motivation belongs in a 
preamble, not in the bill itself.

>My apologies to anyone I have offended.

No apology needed, Lloyd.  I'm not in the least offended by what you wrote 
or by your intent. I'm simply counseling care and deliberation.  Remember: 
no good deed goes unpunished.

Kim Elmore, N5OP
Technical Specialist, ARRL

                           Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
                        University of Oklahoma
         Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
"All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.