[ARRL-OK] re: Convergent Volunteers

[Jim Glover]

Hi, Lloyd...

> I am saddened to read that you see me as a danger to amateur radio. 
> I've been a ham for over 30 years.  I've seen the good, bad, and ugly in 
>   and out of our hobby. 

I don't doubt that you are, in most respects, a good ham.  However, if
you manage to cause the adoption of legislation which creates two classes
of hams, those who have the right to erect really good antennas, and those
who are not entitled to that same right, you *will* damage amateur radio.

> I try not to replicate anything bad for OUR 
> hobby, not yours, not mine, OURS.

Just not OUR right to have good antennas?  At least, not our EQUAL right?

> If we can have a ham in a nursing home on the roster, I don't think I am 
> all that bad.		:)

I do not mean to suggest that you are all bad.  I am sure you have done
many fine things in your ham career, as have so many others.

> I don't think I am the enemy.  They, in this case, are the two 
> legislators who have proposed potentially harmful legislation, not only 
> for amateur radio operators, but also for every police, fire, and EMS 
> company in the State, not to mention every GMRS, CB, and any other type 
> of user you can imagine.

I pretty much agree with you, here.  Communication facilities generally
pay very handsome dividends for our society, and it's very foolish and
short-sighted to try to "protect" citizens from having them visible.  I
truly wish your efforts to promote sanity in allowing the structures
which could support effective communications to flourish were not tainted
by this fatal flaw.  It would be really great if there were a position
the entire amateur radio community could support.

> You state that I don't protect all hams (and 
> I'll agree that what I wrote can be read that way)

Lloyd, I do not understand.  If you agree that what you wrote can be
read that way, then why do you want it to become law?  Do you actually
want to create a situation where hams who are members of certain groups
have more of a legal right to put up good antennas than the rest of us?
And if you do not want to create such a situation, why not simply
*change* the language you are suggesting?  Why not just drop the part
about having to be active in any type of group?

If you insist on defending that language as what should be called for
to help mitigate the bad effects of this proposed legislation, then
how can we possibly conclude anything *except* that you are in favor
of offering more rights to put up good antennas to those who are part
of certain groups?

Why not just give up on that one aspect?  Why not simply change the
language of the modification you proposed so that it still calls for
the greatest possible accommodation, but for *all* hams, and not just
*some* hams?

If you won't make that change, then, yes, you *are* proposing to
protect only some hams, and not others, and you need to own up to
that.

Why wouldn't you simply endorse the inclusion of *all* hams in your
call for the greatest possible accommodation?

I simply do not understand.

73,
Jim  WB5UDE