[QCWA] Rhetoric and Purpose

[Matt Tinker]

Hi Paul
I agree that being seen as you stated could cause some to become turned off 
by the concept of 25 years etc.  I agree that a middle ground has to, and 
can be met.  I think that we need to be seen as : a. "Old geezers", Pros, 
Mentors, A Fun Organization, An active Organization, and "Boy, When I get 
there I want to Join" type of organization.  Are we going to appeal to 
everyone, I don't think so, but can we appeal to the 34 year old amateur in 
21 years when he or she has the 25 years ? I sure hope so.  What we do now 
as an organization will tell the tale.  There is always room for compromise 
and good planing, and that means the middle.  Thanks for the reply 
Paul....73's Matt W9PW


At 03:42 PM 04/10/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>______________________________________________________________
>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