[Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
W2AGN
[email protected]
Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:45:32 -0400
Ok, I'll add to the bandwidth, since so many feel the need to quote 12K worth of messages for a 3 word reply. Take that you POP servers all over QCWA-land!
On 27 Jul 2002 at 16:30, William Mcgrannahan wrote:
> Very well said..............73 Bill McGrannahan, N0ZL
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Plamondon" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:26 AM
> Subject: RE: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
>
>
> >
> > Hi, Al.
> >
> > Oh, I think that was surely an "attack" - albeit very nicely
> > articulated.
> >
> > As for the filing protocol ... we have leaders in democracies (which
> > really means "republics") to ACT for us - not to take polls on every
> > issue to determine what they should do. However, (as I alluded to
> > earlier) if this were a controversial issue, they surely should have
> > (and I believe would have) encouraged a debate and perhaps called for a
> > vote of the membership. This one was a "slam dunk" and it would have
> > been an expensive and time-wasting process to find out that the vast
> > majority of us were in favor.
> >
> > I infer from your words that you suspect John might have acted
> > unilaterally - I would doubt that very much - but it is something that
> > perhaps should be made clearer for such formal statements. I certainly
> > expect our officers to participate.
> >
> > 73, w6BOB
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of [email protected]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 5:35 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
> >
> >
> > Hi Bob, Raymond and everyone else. Bob's comments about W3BE are
> > correct. However, we are not dealing in personalities here. for my "two
> > cents worth", I saw no "attack" on W3BE. Raymond has every right as a
> > QCWA member to question whether if any Director acting for QCWA "at
> > large" has the privilege or right to file a petition on behalf of QCWA
> > without the membership "at large" having advance knowledge. Are you
> > implying that once our leadership has been elected, they have the right
> > to file or make any public position on behalf of the organization "at
> > large" without first at least asking for a consensus beforehand? In a
> > democracy, I think not. I don't know how you took Raymond's comments
> > Bob. But I certainly did not see any animosity in it all. Looks to me
> > like all Raymond did is exercise his right as a dues paying, voting
> > member to ask what was going on...73 Al W3AWU
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:37:01 -0700 "Bob Plamondon" <[email protected]>
> > writes:
> > >
> > > Hi, Raymond.
> > >
> > > If you bothered to check the website for Officers/Directors
> > > http://www.qcwa.org/off_dir.htm you would have discovered that
> > > W3BE is
> > > a Director.
> > >
> > > The reason organizations have leaders is to act for us - which John
> > > did extremely well in this instance. Were this a controversial issue
> > > (which it clearly is not), I'm sure our leadership would have played
> > > it
> > > quite differently.
> > >
> > > Gratitude should have been your response - not an attack on one of
> > > our hardest working and competent leaders. Think about it.
> > >
> > > 73, w6BOB
> > > Southern California
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > > Behalf Of [email protected]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:05 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > John:
> > > I read as you suggested, and first said I thought it was very
> > > well
> > > said.
> > > However on reflection of a couple of days, I am a little
> > > disturbed by
> > > the implications of your wordings. You may not at all appreciate my
> > > observations, but indeed, I am not a mindless twit. I have thoughts
> > > and
> > > values and I chose this venue to make them known. I may be one
> > > single,
> > > lonely
> > > challenger, but then again, I think there are at least scores of
> > > QCWA
> > > members
> > > who think as I do but don't know what to do about it. If I am alone,
> > > I
> > > know I
> > > shall be told so on this reflector. Further, I have no personal
> > > agenda;
> > > I
> > > only want QCWA to become something which today I find seriously
> > > lacking
> > > in
> > > the organization -- a sense of mission, purpose, and means to
> > > fulfill
> > > that
> > > mission and purpose.
> > > I have absolutely no quarrel with the content of the filing.
> > > I
> > > support
> > > its content in almost 100% and know I could not have thought or said
> > > it
> > > more
> > > clearly.
> > > However, how this document came about and what it implies
> > > that it
> > > is
> > > in relationship to the total membership of QCWA is that what I
> > > question.
> > > That
> > > and that alone. So if any other "reflector" wants to comment, please
> > > comment
> > > at that point.
> > > You said it was filed under your name. You said in the
> > > document
> > > that
> > > QCWA as an organization supported everything you wrote in your
> > > filing.
> > > You
> > > said there are, I think, 10,000 members; implying that all 10,000
> > > members
> > > supported 100% of what you had filed.
> > > In my opinion, I think that there are some explanations you
> > > owe
> > > to
> > > those of us who are simply the rank and file card-carrying members
> > > of
> > > QCWA.
> > > Perhaps I am the only one of the 10,000 who does not know who you
> > > are,
> > > but I
> > > rather think there might be two or three more out there who might
> > > join
> > > me in
> > > asking for further explanation. If you are a "leader" in our
> > > organization,
> > > then help me to know who you are and where you are planning to lead
> > > QCWA. I
> > > might be with you 100%; but until I know who you are, what you stand
> > > for,
> > > where you want to lead us, and how you plan to get us to get there
> > > with
> > > you,
> > > I have reservations about joining 100% in your methodology. Indeed,
> > > I
> > > find
> > > that if I have no part in something, no one can say that he speaks
> > > for
> > > me at
> > > all.
> > > You may be a person who is used to having your way because of
> > > past
> > > positions outside or inside QCWA. As far as I am concerned, the past
> > > is
> > > past.
> > > You will note I have not listed my CV either. Now is now and we are
> > > totally
> > > in an organization of equals. Please tell me more about how this
> > > document and
> > > filing came about.
> > > (1) Since it was filed in your name, is this your assumption
> > > that you
> > > can speak for all of QCWA just because you are you?
> > > (2) If this was a group who had filed this, who were all
> > > those
> > > in the
> > > group and on what authority do they presume they can speak for all
> > > 10,000 of
> > > us? How come you did not indicate that to us on the reflector?
> > > (3) If this was a consensus of the entire membership, did
> > > every
> > > member receive a copy to which they affirmed their support of your
> > > position
> > > (or whatever special, elitist group decided to do this)?
> > > (4) I noted that K5DLE raised the question as to why you did
> > > not
> > > simply place the document on this reflector so that every member of
> > > the
> > > reflector could read it directly -- indeed, I ask the same question?
> > > (5) I do not know the "Board of Directors," so am I correct
> > > in
> > > assuming this was a vote taken by the "Board of Directors?" The
> > > document
> > > stated, as I recall, that "QCWA supports . . . " If so, on what
> > > authority
> > > have they done this?
> > > As I read the "Constitution and By-laws" of QCWA such filings
> > > with FCC
> > > are not included in the mission of QCWA nor in the authority given
> > > the
> > > Board
> > > of Directors to oversee. Thus, in my opinion, person or group this
> > > was,
> > > has
> > > gone far, far beyond the boundary of its authority and mission.
> > > Statements
> > > which imply a small group, no matter who they are, can speak for
> > > 10,000
> > > members are well beyond the views of some current members and former
> > > members.
> > > There has been a flood of persons who have left QCWA precisely
> > > because
> > > the
> > > Board of Directors presumed it could speak for the entire membership
> > > in
> > > another recent FCC filing. Most likely those people will never be
> > > back.
> > > Some
> > > request to be members of the local chapters without having to be a
> > > part
> > > of
> > > the national organization. Ever wondered why that is so?
> > > With patience I await your response
> > > God Bless America!
> > >
> > > 73 Raymond w5vpu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > multipart/alternative
> > > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > > text/html
> > > The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> > > or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed.
> > > Please post in Plain-Text only.---
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QCWA mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QCWA mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> >
> > ALFRED CAMMARATA
> > W3AWU
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
--
_ _ _ _ _
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke
( W )( 2 )( A )( G )( N ) http://www.w2agn.net
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ARCI, NJQRP, ARQrp,GQRP,RSGB
Ex- K3HLU, W7JEF, W4MPC, N4JS