John K5PGW- I fully agree with you now that I have had a chance to experience both sides of the spectrum.
Bob K5SEP --- John King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob: The reason the ARRL doesn't poll its' members > or > the Amateur Radio Community is because the "CEO" > doesn't CARE what members think. He is the "boss" > and > annointed himself as "the RULER" of ARRL" and thus > he > has a right to decide what is best for Amateur Radio > because he is in control and no one shall get to the > decision making table lest they come by him and > "leave > the thinking to his Majesty". I have felt for over > 25 > years that the "CEO" was the problem for all Hamdom. > 73, John, K5PGW > --- Peter Markavage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A quick article index search for "surveys" in QST > > popped out 91 different > > articles. > > An ARRL site search for "surveys" resulted in 848 > > results. > > > > ARRL 1998 Annual Report, page 6, provides a bar > > graph showing membership > > rise and fall from 1978 through 1998. > > > http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/98ar.pdf > > The membership graph is shown to somewhat cyclical > > even during this > > period. As far as Incentive Licensing, who cares > at > > this point. It was > > over 35 years ago. ARRL acknowledged years ago > that > > it probably was not > > the best proposal to support. If you really want > to > > know the "numbers" > > between 1969 though 1977, check the Annual Report > > write ups in QST for > > those years. > > > > Pete, wa2cwa > > > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:50:18 -0800 (PST) Bob Scupp > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > > Anthony, Don and Everyone else- > > > > > > I had the privilege (?) of serving as ARRL Rocky > > > Mountain Division Vice-Director for two > > consecutive > > > terms. At that time, terms of office were two > > years > > > (1990-1994). > > > One of my continuing issues with ARRL is that of > > > non-documentation. For example, CQ Magazine is > > > subscription only and not a membership > > organization > > > unlike the League. Yet, in each monthly issue > > there is > > > a self addressed post-card for responding to > that > > > issue's survey questions. They then report the > > results > > > in a future issue. The League could do something > > > similar with QST. It could also do the same > survey > > on > > > their website. Collection of this data can be > > compiled > > > for computer storage and report in an upcoming > > issue > > > of QST. It can also be used for their Board and > > other > > > committee activities. So why do they not do > this? > > > Unfortunately, the answer is obvious. > > > I got tired of hearing, "The members in our > > Division > > > support/do not support an issue". Who does or > > > doesn't(not by name and callsign)? Where is a > > > documented survey to back up a given position? > > > > > > Sorry I do not remember the FCC Docket number > but > > > remember in the late 60's (I think it was > > 1968-1969) > > > Incentive Licensing? Please correct me if I am > > wrong > > > but I thought the League supported it. As a > > result, > > > many of their members by the thousands dropped > > their > > > membership for years to come. Naturally this > > adversely > > > effected League membership numbers along with > the > > > amateur radio community. > > > > > > Unfortunately, after all these years the League > > and > > > their higher-ups have not learned their lesson. > > > Survey, Document, Report, etc. > > > > > > Just my two cents worth if that. > > > > > > Bob K5SEP > > > ARRL Member since 1969 > > > ARRL Life Member since 1976 > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com ______________________________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Partner Website: http://www.amfone.net Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:[email protected]
