Tnx Don, I could not agree more.
Tom - KØPJG Life Member ARRL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Merz Donald S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: [AMRadio] In Defense Of The ARRL The ARRL is the only organized and funded voice that we have. All the arguments below sound just like this one: "I don't vote because all politicians are bad." Well if you don't vote--or in this case, if you choose not to support the ARRL, then you are assuredly getting what you deserve. The management of spectrum and the technologies that use that spectrum are continuously changing. For better or worse is a judgment call--change is the only certainly. If we want to protect what we have--if ham radio is to survive--then we MUST have the ARRL or something like it. Example: All TV broadcast stations have to go digital by 2007. Why not all ham stations? Are we next? If so, you can forget AM--and sideband too! If you believe in and love democracy, then by heaven please vote. If you believe in and love ham radio, then for heaven's sake please support the ARRL. To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, the ARRL is the worst form of a ham organization--except that we have no other. 73, Don Merz, N3RHT -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AMRadio] interesting comments in rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Geoff Edmonson wrote: > "Mark Bell" wrote in message ... > > > Folks -- > > > > Pete WA2CWA and I (Mark K3ZX) have made a proposal to the ARRL > > to offer an AM endorsement for the ARRL Worked All States (WAS) > > award. <snip> > "David Stinson" wrote in a message ... > > Getting the League to create this endorsement might be tough. > There is a big bias against AM at the ARRL. > And with Mr. FCC's negative comments at Dayton about > using "6 KCs of bandwidth", that makes it double tough. <snip> > "V A Weiss" wrote in message > > I agree with Mr. Stinson. > > Personally I couldn't care less what the arrl does anymore. Their > anti-CW spirit has me tossing the magazines from my lifetime subscription in > the waste can every month. > > The League speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand they > whine about 6 KC AM bandwidth being too much but then they condemn CW with > its lesser bandwidth. But then they try to sell more magazines with their > sappy covers with pictures of the fine, old vintage gear. <snip> > W9STB > ==================================================== > > Whatcha think, folks? > > 73 = Best Regards, > -=Geoff/W5OMR=- Unfortunately it seems all too accurate IMHO. I've tried to discuss with some of the eastern ARRL bigwigs the 'real' problems with attracting new blood to amateur radio - like the lack of a challenge or the lack of any feelling of accomplishment or something to be proud of working towards. They'd rather blame the internet and cellphones for it all, and instead dumb down the current requirements even more if it will entice more newbies who'll buy subscriptions and new gear from their advertizers. Their actions seem to contradict their talk about 'saving ham radio', because encouraging the basics and *any* mode allowed never seems to be the goal. Instead, they encourage what will sell magazines and more Yaecomewood disposable radios. I still remember the look in Mr. ARRL's eye when he said "we need to make it easier for people to become hams" and I said "why not make it something worth acheiving, instead of a hand out that is easily tossed away when no effort was expended to earn it?". Then I had to gall to mention AM as well as adding some articles to QST for a simple tube CW transmitter or such. If he'd rolled his eyes any harder, I think they'd have taken flight! Some point out the the ARRL has taken more of an interest in AM and vintage gear as of late. My response is 'why did they ever lose interest?'. If they've done anything at all, it hasn't been freely or happily, more grudgingly. Enough people want to know about 'real radio' and how it works that they've been forced to do something or lose any remaining credibility. When you look at all they've done (or not done) in the past, it's difficult to see their more recent attention as sincere. What is the figure hams who are members? Something like 25%? That in itself says a lot right there. You'd think they'd embrace ALL aspects of amateur radio and do EVERYTHING they could to please all users without having to do one at the expense of another. They seem content though to push books and sell advertising, which is why so many refer to them as the Amateur Radio Retail Lobby. A $10 million plus publishing house, basically. What do you think the chances are of the ARRL sponsoring an AM contest some weekend? Or a vintage gear event? As good as an AM WAS endorsement, or as bad? It's amazing how some consider AM operation to be a waste, yet have no problem with contesters taking up so much spectrum most(every?) weekend, or as W9STB points out, to say that 6 kc is 'too wide' while turning their back on the CW, a mode more "efficient" than SSB. You don't have to look hard to see where their focus is and why. I wish Pete and Mark luck as well, hopefully they'll make progress and prove us naysayers at least somewhat wrong. If the past is any indication, though.... 73, Boomer KA1KAQ _______________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio _______________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
