[QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose

[Walcott, Paul]

Hi Matt,

In my mind, the real problem is that a lot of the people on the
reflector seem to be taking this too seriously.  Reading these threads,
I'm feeling a lot of "My way or no way," attitudes.  I guess what I'm
really hoping for is a middle ground where we can avoid the extremes.  

I didn't mean that being pro-active is necessarily elitist, but that the
combination of a 25 year license requirement and the pro-active nature
might become, or at least be perceived as elitist.  The problem with
that sort of thing is that being seen as elitist by those outside of
QCWA would do us almost as much harm as if we truly were elitist.

73's,
Paul
WD8H


-----Original Message-----
From: qcwa-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:qcwa-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Matt Tinker
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Discussion of QCWA
Subject: Re: [QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose

Hi Paul,
Very good point to having a good discussion regarding the future of the 
QCWA. I'm not sure how to solve the current problem, if it is really a 
problem?  I joined the QCWA because it was a milestone (25 years as a
Ham 
!!), and I am very proud of being an Ham. I would believe that most of
us 
joined for the same reason.  Having a social/historical aspect to any 
organization is very good, and provides an excellent opportunity for 
Amateur's to get together and share ideas and tall stories etc.  Being 
"Pro-Active" as you stated, is not an elitist attitude in my opinion. I 
think there is room for both aspects social/historical and becoming more

active in the direction of Amateur Radio.  As you stated this is a hobby
of 
diverse interests and ideas, I submit that diversity is what can make
for 
common ground and effective programs for that diversity.  This is a
large 
organization with a ton of potential to infuse leadership, knowledge,
and 
experience to the future of amateur radio.  The social/historical aspect
is 
very enjoyable, and I enjoy our local Chapter meetings very much, but I 
also can see the QCWA active in programs on a National basis to expand 
Amateur Radio, and inform the public of who, what, when and where.  What

those types of programs are I cannot say at this time, but with input
from 
our membership, and thoughtful planning by our Board of Directors I'm
sure 
we can become the same QCWA , but also a different QCWA in the future.

73
Matt Tinker
W9PW


At 11:51 AM 04/10/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings All,
>
>Lately as I've been reading threads on the reflector there's been an
>unpleasant level of rancor and rhetoric, but somehow today I realized
>that most of this conflict revolves around people with two very
>different views of one central question:  What is, and what should be
>the role of the QCWA in the larger picture of amateur radio in both the
>present and the future?
>
>  One view seems to hold that the QCWA exists mainly as a social
>organization for old timers.  Closely related to that social function
we
>would provide an avenue for reminiscence of the old days and in that
way
>we would help preserve historic information as it is related to ham
>radio.
>
>  The second view seems to be much more proactive.  In this view the
QCWA
>should have an active role in guiding the future of ham radio.  Some of
>the people holding this view would like the QCWA to take over much of
>the guidance which has historically been a function of the ARRL.
>(Didn't Wayne Greene say as much in editorials he wrote during the
early
>'80's?)  Others don't take quite as broad a view, but do see the QCWA
as
>a supplement to the traditional role of the ARRL.
>
>  Unfortunately I have problems with both of these views.
>
>  In the first case, the "Social/Historical" QCWA we run the risk of
>becoming, or at least being perceived as the old geezers.  In an era of
>the world-wide-web and satellites we'll find it hard to attract members
>who's interests aren't what we (the present membership) don't consider
>traditional amateur radio.
>
>  And in the second view, the "proactive" QCWA, with our membership
>requirement of 25 years experience, we run the risk of being perceived
>as or perhaps actually becoming elitist.  In a hobby with as many
>different and diverse interests as ham radio, the last thing we need is
>for any group to be seen as elitist.
>
>  I don't have any easy answer.  I just hope that we can find some
middle
>ground to avoid the perils I've touched upon.  Most of all, I hope we
>can have a reasoned discussion while turning down the rhetoric level by
>several notches.
>
>  73's,
>
>Paul
>
>WD8H
>
>(Life member of both the QCWA and ARRL)
>
>______________________________________________________________
>QCWA mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net

______________________________________________________________
QCWA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:QCWA at mailman.qth.net