[ARRL-OK] Re: SB-389 Verbiage

Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:42:57 +0000

Might I suggest that the criticism of some of the wording
made by several individuals, and the suggestion by Mark
Schneider, in particular, are simply attempts to get this
thing right the first time?

Any wording that can, in any manner, suggest preferential
treatment for one or several segments of the ham population
could be almost worse than no legislation in the long run.

In any desired legislation, the most general application
possible is to be sought by those who stand to benefit.

The wording suggested by Mark Schneider seems to me, at
least for now, to be highly desirable.  It appears to be
straightforward and clearly worded.  I suppose more verbiage
might be needed to satisfy "legal minds," but I subscribe
to the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (K.I.S.S.) philosphy whenever
possible.  The simpler the wording, the less the likelihood for
undesirable interpretations by those whose interests are not
favorable to our own interests.

D C "Mac" Macdonald
K2GKK/5

----Original Message Follows----

From: "Craig Roberts" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [ARRL-OK] Re: ARRL-OK digest, Vol 4 #146 - 7 msgs
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:54:08 -0600

These people are whining about your and my efforts, but they are not making
any efforts of their own to contact their reps.

The reply to them is to complain about the bill and try to have it stopped.
Or to add more verbiage to include their concerns.  Not knock those of us
who are in the arena and fighting already.

_________________________________________________________________
Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in 
enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!   
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es