The the moment, I'm giving the editor the benefit of the doubt and will wait to 
see how he treats my article, presuming it gets published. I lean toward this 
attitude since, as I mentioned in my incomplete run-on sentence in my last post 
that he is active in Boy Scouting as am I, and also an Eagle Scout. Scouting 
teaches tolerance, so I'm being tolerant, at least for now. (Vietnam taught me 
the other end of the spectrum which is also still with me.) However, my article 
was (and still is) quite defensive of ham radio's and the ARRL's non-political, 
non-partisan (in regards to all but ham radio and especially not to special 
interest groups), and generally non-controversial essence, while being critical 
of the editor's presumptive insinuations against ARRL and ham radio operators. 
I am still incensed, but am trying to get beyond that with a rational coherent 
message; normally, like you, I wait 24 hours before making a response so that I 
cool off. My initial message from which I am building a foundation is somewhat 
lukewarm at the point and I'm still trying to moderate the invective and 

I also presumed that on this list, of all lists, where members are inclined 
toward argumentation that many would respond with their own invective, 
especially on the topic of BPL which WILL adversely affect us all. Of course, 
many probably are just cooling off themselves. :-D

73 de Fred K2FRD

At 3:20 PM -0500 14/8/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>Well, it is early in the day yet.
>I plan on writing something to the editor; I just don't want to do it right 
>now while my dander is up.  Can't very well expect the editor/author to stick 
>to "fair and balanced" reporting unless I try to do it myself...
>What's really sad is the implication, on face value, of his libel (and that's 
>what it is, IMHO):  The primary, if not sole, reason that the ARRL is opposed 
>to BPL is because they must have been paid off to do so by BPL's commercial 
>competitors.  So if we're not for you, we must have been bribed to be against 
>Oh, as far as the lobbyist thing goes, I thought the League did have someone 
>in DC to represent our interests.  But I don't recall the details, and 
>hesitate to comment further without them.  (Hopefully someone more in touch 
>with that than I am can get you more specific and accurate information).
>By the way, do take note that the author/editor indicates at one point that he 
>was once interested in amateur radio and getting a license.  Makes one wonder 
>why he didn't, and whether or not he has some ulterior motive in his little 
>smear there.

73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD, VO2FS
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems

To post a message, DX related items only,

This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA

Reply via email to