[QCWA] Is APRS legal? QCWA President says NO!

[William M. Pasternak]

At 07:37 PM 5/7/05, you wrote:
>At 03:27 PM 5/7/05, you wrote:
>
>>If this subject is of that much importance to you then one would think it 
>>to be incumbent upon you to declare yourself a candidate for this office 
>>in the next election.  As one who has run a not-for-profit organization 
>>since 1977 -- the past 5 years as a federally chartered 501(c)(3) -- I 
>>have come to believe that those who criticize have an obligation to 
>>provide an alternative by offering themselves as a replacement.
>>
>>de
>>Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
>
>Bill-
>
>In addressing the issue here, I think I have the right to address a couple 
>of questions to you.  I assume you have read your QCWA Journal and are 
>familiar with the column in question.


Yes


>1.  Do you believe the use of MYCALL-N is a legal ID?


I have no idea.  The last time I was on Packet, I still used a Commodore 
C-64 to write articles fo7 73 Magazine and some strange unit in a plastic 
box from a now defunct company that kind-of put the C-64 on Packet.  And 
candidly, I found Packet very, very boring and have never played with it 
again.

Maybe I would have if not had the WWW and e-mail come along, but reality is 
-- who needs 1200 baud Packet when I can chat -- live -- real time -- using 
Instant Messaging?  Or direct e-mail to the other person -- and he/she need 
not be a ham.  Except possibly for APRS which I find a nice novelty, I 
cannot fathom any reason to send a message at 1200 baud and pray it might 
be delivered.


>2.  If the answer to the above is "yes", then do you believe the President 
>of QCWA, writing in the official journal, should be held accountable for 
>his position that it is not legal?


Yes or no -- is not really relevant.  And this is the reason you do not 
ever want a person like me as an officer in QCWA.

You see, I would not give a rats posterior about anyones "opinion" here in 
cyberspace, in QCWA -- and definitely not anyone at the ARRL -- no matter 
his/her credentials.  None of you or them make the rules,

Instead, I would pick up the phone, call Bill Cross W3TN at the FCC Rules 
Division -- and ask him.  If he said legal -- then its legal.  If he says 
not legal -- then it isn't.

I'd then make my findings known and leave it to the QCWA rank and file to 
see if they thought it was worth pursuing any further.  Because to me, its 
naught but a tempest in a teapot and I would not waste precious minutes 
worrying about it when I could be seated at the Schubert in NYC enjoying 
"Monty Python's Spamalot."

My approach while logical, will upset everyone with political ambitions 
and/or a personal agenda -- which I truly delight in doing.

And should the president be held accountable?  Only if you want him to be 
held responsible.

If its all that important to you then go for the gold.  But don't go asking 
-- or even suggesting -- that anyone else to come along with you in your 
quest.  I doubt if very many people have that much interest in this entire 
issue.

(Another reason you really never want me as an official of QCWA.  I 
absolutely refuse to be "politically correct."  If I were, I would not be 
stopping in NYC to see "Spamalot" on my way to Dayton.)

de
Bill P. / ITF


>73
>
>Gene Pentecost W4IMT
>
>BTW: I have participated in the organization of two 501(c)(3) 
>organizations and served on the BoD of one of those.  And if I should 
>choose to criticize President Bush, I would not feel any obligation to run 
>for the President of the United States. :-)

>_______________________________________________
>QCWA mailing list
>QCWA at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa