[CW] Re: [RE: ARRL CW

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Actually it looks like he supports your position and is going to help you by
finding out the information you asked.

I wouldn't call that baloney, he is giving you real meat, OM.

73

DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Farrell" <k4rt@usa.net>
To: <n1ea@arrl.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: [RE: ARRL CW


Below, is the kind of baloney response our Roanoke Division director
practices
when asked questions by members.

Regarding your ARRL recall question, if there is a provision in the bylaws
for
recall (or similar remedy) a sure way to get the attention of the Board on
the
CW issue is to garner the necessary documentation (signatures, etc) from
ARRL
members in each division and file petitions with the ARRL for recall prior
to
the Board meeting.

I don't have a copy of the bylaws, but I'll try to find them on the ARRL web
page.

73, Brad K4RT

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:46:33 PM EST
From: "Dennis Bodson" <bodsond@worldnet.att.net>
To: "'Brad Farrell'" <k4rt@usa.net>
Subject: RE: ARRL CW "Poll"

Brad:

Thanks for your input. The ARRL decision, if, any, will come after the ARRL
BOD meeting next week.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Farrell [mailto:k4rt@usa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:16 AM
To: w4pwf@arrl.org
Subject: ARRL CW "Poll"


Mr. Dennis Bodson W4PWF
ARRL Roanoke Division Director
233 N Columbus St
Arlington, VA 22203

Dear Mr. Bodson:

I support retention of the CW (Morse code) testing requirement form Amateur
Radio licensure in the United States.  In my opinion, the American Radio
Relay League used very poor judgment in effecting, last year, the
elimination of the CW requirement under international treaty, and then
failing to take the lead in filing proposed rulemaking with the Federal
Communications Commission.

Now, the ARRL has a "poll" on its web site referencing a wish list for 2004
that includes eliminating the CW requirement.  This "poll" is unscientific
and easily manipulated, and therefore unreliable.  ARRL should directly poll
its members on such an important issue, and not rely on web-based gimmicks
for important policy making decisions.

I would appreciate knowing your position on this matter, and the ARRL
Board's position on this matter as a whole.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

73,
Brad Farrell K4RT
Alexandria, Va.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Beaudry" <k8la@arrl.net>
To: "Joe L Blackwell" <aa4nn@juno.com>
Cc: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Re: [CW] ARRL CW Survey]


> > As regards stuffing the ballot on the arrl website, you need do
nothing
> > about altering or deleting your cookies to make extra votes, you can
> > just
> > bounce back and forth between clicking a choice and seeing a result.
> > Ad
> > infinitum.  I just stuffed a dozen or so for concerns about BPL.  I
> > hope
> > the ARRL sees the error of its ways and completely chunks the
results
> > of
> > this kind of poll.
> >
>
> I certainly hope this poll isn't used for anything other than
> amusement.  Like others, I was able to vote a second time.  Also, the
> current poll results are 16000 against Morse testing, 8600 for.
>
> --
> Thomas M. Beaudry
> k8la /