On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Kim Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I generally sit on my hands, but I'm feeling waggish so...
Sorry, I don't have a Milkbone for you. (o: > A false premise. The same ratios roughly hold for the overall US electorate > (I'm not talking only registered voters, I'm talking the eligible > electorate). Given the premise made here, are we to assume that the large > majority of the electorate that doesn't bother to vote feels the same way > about? Actually, it's not. Turnout for the 2004 national election was over 60 percent according to the US Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf 50% or higher most of the time in national elections, far better than the ARRL (a national organization) can claim of licensed amateurs. When people feel their vote actually matters, they vote. How many times have you heard someone lament that 'politicians' who do whatever they want, regardless of what their constituents ask of them? Sounds a lot like the complaints about ARRL officials. And no, it's not merely a case of sour grapes as you and Pete seem to be implying. I've been told the same thing by ARRL officials as by local politicians, when asked why they clearly go against the will of the people at times: "I was elected to do what I feel is best, to use my judgement, to vote my conscience" etc, not to necessarily do what the people ask. > If you don't like the technical article content, write one and submit it. > TAs (technical advisors) perform the "peer review" for submissions to all > League publications. Are you a TA? Have you seen the nature of what gets > submitted? I am, and I do. You apparently missed this part Kim, but like many others, I'm one of the folks who got sick of banging my head against the wall so fondly known as the ARRL. I did request more diversified content of my director, even volunteered to submit some myself. I was told in pretty clear terms that it is not the 'vision' the ARRL has for the future. Not that I couldn't submit it, just that I shouldn't expect to see it printed (in so many words). > But, I keep hearing that "It's all those Yaecomwood ads that ruined QST." > Or the vast, rice-box conspiracy to manipulate us into appliance operating > zombies. Which is it? You're really pushing the 'straw man' to the limit here, Kim. I've not made that argument and I don't see that anyone else has. As AMers we welcome anyone to the mode with whatever gear they can muster. We help them to properly set up their rigs to get the most out of them in the mode. It's then up to them whether they're content with what they have or want something more or different. The issue of ads in QST relates more to what the magazine once was vs what it has become, tracking with the ARRL leadership's handling. This predates the perceived 'need' for a separate technical publication. My argument was, and is - with the declining amateur population and continued whining by the League in recent years about costs, income, and the rest, why produce a monthly catalog/contest results and separate technical publication along side? I can only guess that they figure the technical types will thin out enough to drop QEX and leave the glossy QST catalog as the only regular publication available to the membership. > Hmmm... The same holds for PSK-31, or RTTY, or MFSK16, or (gasp!) > slopbucket! Red herring, methinks. Okay, you're definitely not getting your doggy treat for that silly remark. :D Red herring? No, actually you prove my point (although I suspect they don't promote RTTY with the same zeal as contesting or the digital modes). > Again, the same ratios roughly hold for the US electorate. And again, a > false premise. This shows that there are only a few eligible voters > interested enough to actually make the effort to vote and that such > characteristics hold for the small majority of voters that are also hams. Again, nope. See link above . Expect that much or more this November. But the parallel between apathy in politics and ARRL does track nicely. > Actually, in my experience, some of the most well-rounded hams are the > contesters. My experience lean more towards the term 'stunted'. A decade of first hand accounts as state RACES coordinator showed clearly that contesters repeatedly buckled under pressure during drills or actual events when more than very basic information was sent their way in rapid succession. That's not to say that others did particularly better, simply that all we hear about contesters being excellent for emergency traffic handling is anything but true. They did no better overall than the average newbie who'd been licensed for a few years either rag chewing or chasing DX. I suppose when you're affiliated with a specific group, it's much easier to see the 'good' as opposed to the 'bad. Human nature, no doubt. I see AMers as a very helpful, technically-literate, helpful, social group. Some outside of AM see AMers as primitive, uneducated, and ridiculous for bothering with such an 'old' mode. But my views on how contesting is seen aren't limited to the AM community, either - just tune around on SSB during one of the many contests and listen to the SSBers pissing and moaning about the rude behavior. > I think that's an false characterization of the ARRL. Flawed as it is, it's > all we have and we'd best make the best of it. Again, it's based on my personal experiences with those in power, as well as other folks I know. But since it's also my *opinion*, it's not open for you to decide whether it's false or not. I could just as easily say that your opinions (not facts) expressed here are based in some never-never land fairytale world, showing a clear disregard for the facts (those membership numbers you refuse to recognize as a statement of disenchantment with US amateurs overall.) (o: > With the phone band expansion, I simply do not believe that there is a lack > of space on the bands. That some may have decided that they, by God! own a > particular frequency because they've been there N decades is an argument > without merit. There's plenty of space available, even on contest weekends. Well, we almost agree here, Kim. I make it a point to use different frequencies whenever I call CQ, in order to avoid exactly what you mention above. I also encourage others to do the same, as returning to the same old spots does nothing but put us in a box, with no one to blame but ourselves. Plenty of space, even on contest weekends? Not true. I make a point to use the frequencies below 3800 to provide an AM presence there and to encourage others to get out of the old 75m AM box which annoys so many and prevents some from even bothering to join in. A couple months back during a contest weekend, I had a K8 station come right onto the 80 frequency I was using and start calling 'CQ contest'. When I informed him that the frequency was in use, he replied "I don't care". This was witnessed by others on the frequency, and the station was even known to Bud, WD8BIL who later emailed him about it. So it seems there isn't as much space as you claim, and contesters really aren't the knights in shining armor you and Pete would have us believe. No, I don't think they're all lids, but I also don't believe it's a 'few bad apples' moving around so rapidly as to annoy so many, in so many different places. > As a mater of fact, yes. All contesters that I know are quite considerate. > But they also recognize that no one owns a frequency and if they happen to > land on someone's favorite Sunday morning roundtable frequency, well... > first come, first served. Move the roundtable! See above. I won;t deny there are some AMers who feel they shouldn't have to give up 'their' frequency to anyone, part of the reason I prefer 80 to 75m. But when the frequency is in use, how about 'move the contest'? That's the issue at hand: not coming on to find a frequency in use, but being driven off by intentional interference caused on a wide scale by an ego competition. > I'm unconvinced of this assertion and hold, in fact that it is in general > demonstrably false. And I'm unconvinced that your opinions hold anymore weight than mine, Kim. But I've been willing to cite actual events and instances to prove my case, not just invoke the 'because I said so' argument. > Hmmm... Given that this mirrors the overall electorate (and has for most of > the last 100 years) what can you deduce from it? Given that, beyond the parallel of the apathy felt by many when the few in power don't listen, nothing. Reminder: Link above. > If the remaining 80% really wants the League to do something different, and > I mean *REALLY* wants a change, they effect that change in the bat of an > eye. From my standpoint, just like most of the electorate, most hams > couldn't care less. I agree to some extent, but you're missing one key fact in this argument: unlike the electorate you're so fond of comparing this to, if you want to change the ARRL, you have to pay for the privilege. It wasn't so long ago that a 3-Lander running for a seat in the ARRL was driven out by a 'conflict of interest' argument that to my eyes, didn't hold a lot of water. The bigger issue appears to be that he wasn't willing to tow the old League line and made the mistake of letting folks know ahead of time, so they found a way to avoid letting him in. Whether that's completely the case or not doesn't matter as much as the way it was handled by the ARRL and the impression it left with a lot of amateurs. > P.S.: You want some real fun? Organize an AM-only contest! No, thanks. I don't like radio contests and feel no need to prove I can do better or score higher than someone else. Amateur radio is a hobby to me, not a competition. And considering the view of contesters held by many, I doubt it would advance the cause of AM. Likely just the opposite. It's more fun to me to work on the NEAR-Fest hamfest event, giving back to others rather than the 'take take, me me' approach. No doubt as old-fashioned as the gear and mode I enjoy operating. (o: ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
