Ok Pete, why didn't the group in Newington notify me that the poll was
available and how to access it? An since it is on the web, what about
people who do not either own or can find it on the web?
This is nothing but an excuse. The best thing the ARRL has accomplished for
the general amateur population is their stance against BPL. That has
brought some change, but given their stance on Bandwidth, we might all as
well subscribe to the web and leave radio to others.
73 Jim
W5JO
Yes Bob, we probably have too many opinions that do not fit.
I'll dance with him Mark.
I saw several ways that polling was requested:
August 10, 2004:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html
And last paragraph in this URL:
Please read the synopsis of the petition, below, as well as the exact
rules changes that will be proposed. If you have any questions or
comments, please direct them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ARRL staff will do
its best to answer your questions. Comments will be forwarded to your
ARRL division director. Members are also welcome, as always, to comment
directly to their own director using the email address listed on page 15
of any recent issue of QST.
August 27, 2004
ARRL Letter:
http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/0827/
ARRL Seeks Comment on Draft "Bandwidth" Petition
See the last paragraph.
I can probably quote a number of instances in QST Mag. from that time on
where comments were requested.
My own Director, through our Division Monthly Newsletter, also requested
input and comments to the proposal several times.
Pete, wa2cwa
>
>
> No, you let us know how they did such a great job of polling
radio
> amateurs instead of side stepping and claiming that they did...
>
> Where's the beef?
>
> On 13 Jan 2006 at 15:15, peter markavage wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the English lesson. Let me know when you have more
to
> > contribute to my grammar.
> > Pete, wa2cwa
> >
