[CW] Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting
David J. Ring, Jr.
[email protected]
Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:35:27 -0500
Ed Hare is calling 5 wpm "proficiency"?
5 wpm is "familiarity".
13 wpm is "ability"
20 wpm is "proficiency".
Teen age drivers have their driver's license, but they aren't proficient -
and their insurance rates show it - until they're at least 25 years old.
73
David Ring, N1EA
----- Original Message -----
From: "n3drk" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "fists" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:49 PM
Subject: [CW] Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <[email protected]>
> > > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" <[email protected]>
> > > 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: [email protected]
> > > > > [mailto:[email protected]]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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw