[CW] Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting

[n3drk]

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" <qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU>
> > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:53 PM
> > Subject: RE: ARRL Directors Meeting
> > > Although I would have personally kept code testing in the amateur
radio
> > > service differently than the ARRL proposal, I can hardly argue with
its
> > > statement that if the Extra is the highest testing achievement, it is
> not
> > > unreasonable to expect that it would include proficiency in the
2nd-most
> > > used HF operating mode.

  Ed, in all due respect but i beg to differ. If the Extra is the highest
  testing achievement
  the requirement of 5wpm code is very unreasonable. Those ops who prove
  themselves
  at 20wpm should have the first 25khz of each band for their
 accomplishement.
  Plain
  and simple. Why dont they just do away with the damn code if they are
  promoting
 the 5 wpm for an Extra Class. This is pure chickenshit and lack of
  leadership.


> > > At this point, we have two choices -- we can choose to continue the
> > divisions
> > > between the code- and no-code sides, or we can get behind a proposal
> that
> > > contains some elements of both sides and try to rebuild the sense of
> > oneness
> > > and camraderie that once made amateur radio one community united in a
> > common
> > > cause.

  Well I choose to continue my division which exists between the code and
  no-coders.
  Why should I reach out and extend my hand to these people? I have nothing
 in
  common
  with them. But I support an organization which does not represent me so
why
  should I
  continue to belong. I really dont belong. For 40 bucks a year this is the
  best the ARRL
 can offer? This is a joke. I would much rather perfered them to eliminate
  the code and just
  give everyone a license than this chickenshit attitude of compromise. I
 have
  heard a few say
  if the ARRL does go against our recomendations that we should continue to
  suppor them.
  I am certainly not. I am not being represented so once I send off the last
  batch of qsls to
  the bureau I am going to cancel my membership for good. If the ARRL wants
  new members
  they are sure going about it the wrong way.
  10-4 Good Buddy.

>  john-n3drk

 P.S. I ORIGINALY POSTED THIS ON QRP-L, THE LOW POWER GROUP BUT THE SITE
OWNER WILL JUNK THE POSTS IF THERE IS ANY
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OPINIONS OF ED HARE OR THE ARRL.


> > > Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU
> > > > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of
> > > > Bob Nielsen
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:21 PM
> > > > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion
> > > > Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Considering that just about any position the ARRL board could
> > > > take would
> > > > have significant dissent among the members, I find this proposal to
be
> > > > quite well thought-out.  It's not necessarily what I would choose,
but
> > > > makes sense to me as a compromise between the various positions and
> > > > hopefully the FCC will receive it favorably.
> > > >
> > > > Let the flames begin!
> > > >
> > > > 72/73, Bob N7XY
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>