[Qcwa] Re: QCWA digest, Vol 1 #143 - 3 msgs
Gary Tuck
[email protected]
Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:08:49 -0500
If W5PVU doesn't know who W3BE is (and was), you surely haven't been =
around ham radio long. I don't suppose you know who "Ben F. Waple" was =
either.
Gary, WA4ZQX
>>> [email protected] 07/27/02 03:01AM >>>
Send QCWA mailing list submissions to
[email protected]=20
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa=20
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]=20
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]=20
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of QCWA digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal ([email protected])
2. Re: QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal (Jeffrey D Angus)
3. RE: QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal (Bob Plamondon)
--__--__--
Message: 1
From: [email protected]=20
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:05:14 EDT
Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
To: [email protected]=20
Reply-To: [email protected]=20
John:
I read as you suggested, and first said I thought it was very =
well=20
said.
However on reflection of a couple of days, I am a little disturbed =
by=20
the implications of your wordings. You may not at all appreciate my=20
observations, but indeed, I am not a mindless twit. I have thoughts and=20
values and I chose this venue to make them known. I may be one single, =
lonely=20
challenger, but then again, I think there are at least scores of QCWA =
members=20
who think as I do but don't know what to do about it. If I am alone, I =
know I=20
shall be told so on this reflector. Further, I have no personal agenda; =
I=20
only want QCWA to become something which today I find seriously lacking =
in=20
the organization -- a sense of mission, purpose, and means to fulfill =
that=20
mission and purpose.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the content of the filing. I =
support=20
its content in almost 100% and know I could not have thought or said it =
more=20
clearly.
However, how this document came about and what it implies that it =
is=20
in relationship to the total membership of QCWA is that what I question. =
That=20
and that alone. So if any other "reflector" wants to comment, please =
comment=20
at that point.=20
You said it was filed under your name. You said in the document =
that=20
QCWA as an organization supported everything you wrote in your filing. =
You=20
said there are, I think, 10,000 members; implying that all 10,000 =
members=20
supported 100% of what you had filed.
In my opinion, I think that there are some explanations you owe =
to=20
those of us who are simply the rank and file card-carrying members of =
QCWA.=20
Perhaps I am the only one of the 10,000 who does not know who you are, but =
I=20
rather think there might be two or three more out there who might join me =
in=20
asking for further explanation. If you are a "leader" in our organization,=
=20
then help me to know who you are and where you are planning to lead QCWA. =
I=20
might be with you 100%; but until I know who you are, what you stand =
for,=20
where you want to lead us, and how you plan to get us to get there with =
you,=20
I have reservations about joining 100% in your methodology. Indeed, I =
find=20
that if I have no part in something, no one can say that he speaks for me =
at=20
all.
You may be a person who is used to having your way because of =
past=20
positions outside or inside QCWA. As far as I am concerned, the past is =
past.=20
You will note I have not listed my CV either. Now is now and we are =
totally=20
in an organization of equals. Please tell me more about how this document =
and=20
filing came about.
(1) Since it was filed in your name, is this your assumption that =
you=20
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=20
group and on what authority do they presume they can speak for all 10,000 =
of=20
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=20
member receive a copy to which they affirmed their support of your =
position=20
(or whatever special, elitist group decided to do this)?
(4) I noted that K5DLE raised the question as to why you did =
not=20
simply place the document on this reflector so that every member of the=20
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=20
assuming this was a vote taken by the "Board of Directors?" The document=20=
stated, as I recall, that "QCWA supports . . . " If so, on what =
authority=20
have they done this?=20
As I read the "Constitution and By-laws" of QCWA such filings with =
FCC=20
are not included in the mission of QCWA nor in the authority given the =
Board=20
of Directors to oversee. Thus, in my opinion, person or group this was, =
has=20
gone far, far beyond the boundary of its authority and mission. Statements=
=20
which imply a small group, no matter who they are, can speak for 10,000=20
members are well beyond the views of some current members and former =
members.=20
There has been a flood of persons who have left QCWA precisely because =
the=20
Board of Directors presumed it could speak for the entire membership in=20
another recent FCC filing. Most likely those people will never be back. =
Some=20
request to be members of the local chapters without having to be a part =
of=20
the national organization. Ever wondered why that is so?
With patience I await your response
God Bless America!
=20
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.---
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:38:41 -0700
From: Jeffrey D Angus <[email protected]>
Organization: Grendel's Lair
To: [email protected]=20
Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
Reply-To: [email protected]=20
[email protected] wrote:
>You said it was filed under your name. You said in the document that=20
>QCWA as an organization supported everything you wrote in your filing. =
You=20
>said there are, I think, 10,000 members; implying that all 10,000 =
members=20
>supported 100% of what you had filed.
>
Thanks Raymond. Here on the reflector, after the fact, was the first I'd
heard of it as well. I'm glad there are people that presume to speak for
me without asking my opinion first as well.
Jeff
wa6fwi
life member, I can't "quit."
--=20
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
--__--__--
Message: 3
From: "Bob Plamondon" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:37:01 -0700
Reply-To: [email protected]=20
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=20
Behalf Of [email protected]=20
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:05 PM
To: [email protected]=20
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]=20
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa=20
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
QCWA mailing list
[email protected]=20
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa=20
End of QCWA Digest