>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In [email protected], "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an adult conversation here, or what?
>>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document
you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is
exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some
serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable."
2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek
broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond
until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI).
>>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked
the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the
way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC
submission that amateurs could review.
>>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting
it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the
proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no
response whatsoever to the issues raised.
If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office!
That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise
I wouldn't bother having this discussion.
>>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings
of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to
accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am
an ARRL member.
I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so
he continues to have my full support.
>>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to
display their skills at damage control quite so frequently.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
