Re: [Fwd: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW]
Bud Morin wrote: Thank you, Ron, for telling it like it is!! Bud Morin, K9ZT Bull! See Joe's message about the Ad Hoc committee. He is the third member I have heard who was shut down by the ARRL for proposing limitation on the Pactor robots. Ron is just preaching the propagnada of the ARRL. -- John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. The Headquarters decision makers will never stand for that. I was a member of the first ad hoc committee on digital operation - the committee Headquarters hand picked to propose the framework for the rules concerning automatic digital operation on HF. In spite of the objection by half of the committee members, we were told in so many words, that automatic operation would not fly unless the so called semi-automatic stations were exempted from any restrictions on their operation. That meant they did not have to operate in the narrow segments assigned for automatic stations and did not need an operator present to make sure they did not QRM other operations on the frequency. The individuals pushing semi-automatic operation are the same intervals who are behind the Winlink, Airmail, and other PACTOR, etc. systems that are abusing the amateur service for quasi- commercial purposes. ARRL's EMCOMM staff is pushing Winlink protocols with PACTOR III bandwidths for permanent deployment as an Emergency Communications Resource. I know one of the individuals who is working on the hardware control protocols, professionally, for the joint FEMA ARRL network. Don't give me the it ain't so crap - I've seen it first hand for more than 10 years. Only when ARRL proposes to the FCC that semi-automatic stations be subject to the same rules as any other automatically controlled station will your denials have any validity. 73, ... Joe, W4TV Pay attention all you sheep that follow the League's Party line. Here is someone who HAS told it like it is. He is not the only member of that committee who was fed up. -- John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Pay attention all you sheep that follow the League's Party line. Here is someone who HAS told it like it is. He is not the only member of that committee who was fed up. -- John - W2AGN John, I've heard you Pixx moan for 3 days about how bad the league is, but that's all you do is Pi_xx moan. If you know so much, why don't you stop complaining and offer a solution? ie, put up or shut up? 73, Mike, W5UC age treachery will overcome youth skill http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [Fwd: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW]
There must be a Bash ARRL reflector out there somewhere. Maybe this one can get back to it's purpose---DX. Gerry VE6LB - Original Message - From: W2AGN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW] Bud Morin wrote: Thank you, Ron, for telling it like it is!! Bud Morin, K9ZT Bull! See Joe's message about the Ad Hoc committee. He is the third member I have heard who was shut down by the ARRL for proposing limitation on the Pactor robots. Ron is just preaching the propagnada of the ARRL. -- John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
It is your choice John, whether or not to join, or even like the League. But to make such an inflammatory comment... what facts do you have to back up that opinion? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W2AGN Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW And more important, it is controlled by the ARRL., who are NOT friends of Amateur radio. John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
At 09:22 PM 8/26/2007, you wrote: And more important, it is controlled by the ARRL., who are NOT friends of Amateur radio. John - W2AGN John, just WHO DO you consider a friend of amateur radio. In your response, please limit your discussion to the organization that IS a friend of amateur radio. Please DO NOT discuss the ARRL as I already know how you feel about them. I want to know about the OTHER organization and how THEY are helping amateur radio. 73, Mike, W5UC age treachery will overcome youth skill http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ age treachery will overcome youth skill http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
At 07:52 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote: Sadly, there is no such organization. That makes the ARRL no less of a tax-exempt publishing house, trying to make money off the shhep that will follow them anywhere. -- John - W2AGN John, that is exactly correct, and that is the reason I phrased my question as I did. If ARRL is not a friend of Amateur Radio, then: 1) Why do they provide a Volunteer Counsel program? I can tell you from personal experience that this program saved my fanny back around 1990 or 1991, and it didn't cost me one red cent. I had access to Chris Emlay, the League attorney any time I needed it, as well as a competent local attorney. We won the case. 2) Why does ARRL pay an attorney to represent us ar FCC, and to fight such issues as BPL? If they were simply a publishing company as you suggest, I doubt that they would waste time, money, and effort to work the BPL issue as intently as they do. 3) Why does ARRL work as diligently as they do to represent us at World Radio Conferences? They could just chug along with no effort in that direction, allowing those expenditures to go to the bottom line, and we would likely retain the frequency assignments that we currently have, and they could go on forever as a publishing company. This list could go on on, but I think you SHOULD get the picture. If you don't, then there is no hope for you. May I please suggest that you just sit back, relax, and appreciate the positive things that the League does for us, and cease wasting your time emotion trying to tear them(us) down. I'm not always happy with how they do things, but all in all, they do a great job compared to the organization that you support. 73, Mike, W5UC age treachery will overcome youth skill http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: It is your choice John, whether or not to join, or even like the League. But to make such an inflammatory comment... what facts do you have to back up that opinion? 1. Their recent attempt at Regulation by Bandwidth which was a transparent attempt to make more room for PACTOR III robots. This was done mostly behind the backs of the membership. Finally, after losing a LOT of members, thanks to Skip Tenny exposing this plot, they withdrew their petition, blaming widespread misconception. Which was their way of saying Oops, we got caught. 2. The ARRL supported No-code. That was bad enough, but whether you are for or against no-code, the fact that the Director's vote on the issue was made SECRET is not in keeping with an organization that is supposed to represent Ham Radio. 3. Latest ARRL fiasco. They wanted Spanish Language VE tests! Now I'm sorry if this offends the liberals among us, but if you want a US Ham license, you better be able to speak English! The VEC, in a rare show of intelligence, defeated this dumb idea. 4. There is more. The sponsorship of ICOM, which kind of takes the AMERICAN out of ARRL. The fact that the ARRL clings to its non-profit status, which cripples it when it comes to lobbying for Amateur radio, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong, the ARRL WAS ONCE the representative of Amateur Radio, and not the publishing house and lackey of Japanese Radio makers it has become. -- John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
I wonder if the people making anti-ARRL statements have even bothered to talk to any of the ARRL officials? And if not, why not? I met Joel W5ZN at the Dayton VHF banquet last year (2006). What a great guy! I've had numerous chats with Dave K1ZZ. I always seem to cross paths with my Division and State ARRL officials at most of the local hamfests. These people are all dedicated hams from my observation, and not in the ARRL to make money. They have always come across as wanting to serve me as a member. I can't say I agree with everything the ARRL does, but I think they are doing what they can in a changing world of amateur radio. Let's face it, the average ham is far different today than he or she was back in 1970. I am probably much different in my own interests than the average ham of today. BTW I just renewed my ARRL membership. 73, Zack W9SZ On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Mike(W5UC) Kathy(K5MWH) wrote: At 07:52 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote: Sadly, there is no such organization. That makes the ARRL no less of a tax-exempt publishing house, trying to make money off the shhep that will follow them anywhere. -- John - W2AGN John, that is exactly correct, and that is the reason I phrased my question as I did. If ARRL is not a friend of Amateur Radio, then: 1) Why do they provide a Volunteer Counsel program? I can tell you from personal experience that this program saved my fanny back around 1990 or 1991, and it didn't cost me one red cent. I had access to Chris Emlay, the League attorney any time I needed it, as well as a competent local attorney. We won the case. 2) Why does ARRL pay an attorney to represent us ar FCC, and to fight such issues as BPL? If they were simply a publishing company as you suggest, I doubt that they would waste time, money, and effort to work the BPL issue as intently as they do. 3) Why does ARRL work as diligently as they do to represent us at World Radio Conferences? They could just chug along with no effort in that direction, allowing those expenditures to go to the bottom line, and we would likely retain the frequency assignments that we currently have, and they could go on forever as a publishing company. This list could go on on, but I think you SHOULD get the picture. If you don't, then there is no hope for you. May I please suggest that you just sit back, relax, and appreciate the positive things that the League does for us, and cease wasting your time emotion trying to tear them(us) down. I'm not always happy with how they do things, but all in all, they do a great job compared to the organization that you support. 73, Mike, W5UC Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
OK, well, let's see here: (1) Regulation by bandwith. Poorly written, poorly explained, IMHO, something I did mention to my Division Director prior to the petition withdrawl. I think that the intent of the petition was to (a) allow US amateurs the flexibility that amateurs in most of the rest of the world have, to move sub-band boundaries as conditions warrant, and (b) be flexible enough to accomodate new modes of operation as they become accepted, without lengthy waits on FCC rules changes. The alleged more room for PACTOR III robots cannard is being spread by a small group of anti-PACTOR III/anti-WinLink individuals (there are several running posts on QRZ.COM on these and related subjects) who never can seem to be bothered, when asked, for verifiable facts. (One of these characters now refuses to answer me -- I'm a winlid and an ARRL shill because I kept asking simple questions that he ignored, deflected, or declined to answer. Oh yes, I'm now also a hinternetter, whatever that's supposed to be). There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. (2) It's amazing to me how many people claim that ARRL supported No Code, which about equals the number who claim that ARRL failed to support No Code. The two sides about wash out, except, of course, that either way, the League is an appropriate straw man. I strongly suspect that the reality of the situation was the League being privately informed by some FCC staffers in the know that No Code was going to become a reality whether they liked it or not, so better to prepare for it. That, to me, says a lot about how the FCC looks on the Amateur Service (can anyone say BPL?), but that's another thread for another time. Suffice to say that we should be glad that we had the League doing what it could in the face of often appears to be a Federal bureaucracy that is determined to do what's best... for the bureaucracy... (3) Yes, the Spanish language tests. That's another one that's been so blown out of proportion. Have you actually read what was proposed? Or are you just reacting to the xenophobia out there? The League pointed out to the other VEC's that VE teams were, on their own, translatting the tests into Spanish. They proposed, in essence, that the NCVEC develop a set of standard tests, so that there would be consistancy in what is ALREADY BEING DONE. Apparently enough of the other VEC's disagreed, so that was that. But make no mistake. VE teams ARE translatting AND GIVING the tests in Spanish. It's not against FCC rules! So this was NOT, contrary to some beliefs, an attempt to do something new. Merely to standardize an existing practice. Oh, and don't forget that Puerto Rico, which is US territory, is primarily a Spanish speaking area. (Lovely island; went there for our honeymoon, but we took the wrong road into the rain forest and didn't get to see too much. One of these days...) (4) ICOM sponsorship. Hmm. Let's see. ICOM offers to sponsor the costs involved with certain contests, which helps keep the costs down -- and there are costs involved in running a contest. We see it every day in some professional sports (have you looked at a baseball stadium lately? to say nothing of NASCAR?). So exactly how does ICOM sponsoring some contests take the American out of the ARRL? Besides... how many major manufacturers are out there anyway? And where are they? Could be that no one else offered. Maybe someone will in the future. So what? Now: Have you talked with your ARRL Director lately? Or your Section Manager? Have you told them how you feel? Have you presented them with facts to try to persuade them? If not... why not? If you don't like the way things are going, you're going to have to do more than kvetch on a reflector. Or nothing will change. It's that simple. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: W2AGN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: It is your choice John, whether or not to join, or even like the League. But to make such an inflammatory comment... what facts do you have to back up that opinion? 1. Their recent attempt at Regulation by Bandwidth which was a transparent attempt to make more room for PACTOR III robots. This was done mostly behind the backs of the membership. Finally, after losing a LOT of members, thanks to Skip Tenny exposing this plot, they withdrew their petition, blaming widespread misconception. Which was their way of saying Oops, we got caught. 2. The ARRL supported No-code. That was bad enough, but whether you are for or against no-code, the fact that the Director's vote on the issue was made SECRET is not in keeping with an organization that is supposed
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
At 06:19 PM 8/27/2007, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: If you don't like the way things are going, you're going to have to do more than kvetch on a reflector. Right. You can vote with your feet, as I have after many yrs of supporting the league. John K5MO Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. The Headquarters decision makers will never stand for that. I was a member of the first ad hoc committee on digital operation - the committee Headquarters hand picked to propose the framework for the rules concerning automatic digital operation on HF. In spite of the objection by half of the committee members, we were told in so many words, that automatic operation would not fly unless the so called semi-automatic stations were exempted from any restrictions on their operation. That meant they did not have to operate in the narrow segments assigned for automatic stations and did not need an operator present to make sure they did not QRM other operations on the frequency. The individuals pushing semi-automatic operation are the same intervals who are behind the Winlink, Airmail, and other PACTOR, etc. systems that are abusing the amateur service for quasi- commercial purposes. ARRL's EMCOMM staff is pushing Winlink protocols with PACTOR III bandwidths for permanent deployment as an Emergency Communications Resource. I know one of the individuals who is working on the hardware control protocols, professionally, for the joint FEMA ARRL network. Don't give me the it ain't so crap - I've seen it first hand for more than 10 years. Only when ARRL proposes to the FCC that semi-automatic stations be subject to the same rules as any other automatically controlled station will your denials have any validity. 73, ... Joe, W4TV Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Well Joe, I have NOT said it ain't so so I'm not sure what denials you're talking about. It sounds like a determined number of the committee pushed their own agenda through. And based on the complaints that I've seen about the way some of these semi-automatic stations have been running, this was a bad decision. What I said, or thought I had said, was that the semi-automatic stations need to be segregated in their own sub-spectrum. I say that because of the way that some of these stations have abusively operated. Now we can do one of three things about it: (1) Nothing and let the chips fall where they may (2) Kvetch on reflectors and web site postings, which make us feel good. (3) Write our directors, and keep writing them, and tell them that this is wrong. And why. Which of the three do you think will have the most impact? I am not saying that the ARRL HQ is infallible; it is. Nor that they don't make mistakes; they have. I am saying that concerns must be addressed. And I am saying that it is easy for a director to fluff off one letter. A hundred, a thousand, with copies to the vice director, and the other directors, and the executive VP's... have impact. Or at least, they will if they present solid arguments, and don't appear to be a sign this campaign organized by a minority. HQ is not the League. We are the League. And every person who walks away from the League, or never joins in the first place, because of a perceived wrong, or a misunderstanding, or because of one inflexible issue, not only weakens the League, but permits those who would twist it into their own purposes greater power to do just that. So please, don't put words in my mouth and then tell me that you deny those words and you don't want to hear them. -Original Message- From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 8:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. The Headquarters decision makers will never stand for that. I was a member of the first ad hoc committee on digital operation - the committee Headquarters hand picked to propose the framework for the rules concerning automatic digital operation on HF. In spite of the objection by half of the committee members, we were told in so many words, that automatic operation would not fly unless the so called semi-automatic stations were exempted from any restrictions on their operation. That meant they did not have to operate in the narrow segments assigned for automatic stations and did not need an operator present to make sure they did not QRM other operations on the frequency. The individuals pushing semi-automatic operation are the same intervals who are behind the Winlink, Airmail, and other PACTOR, etc. systems that are abusing the amateur service for quasi- commercial purposes. ARRL's EMCOMM staff is pushing Winlink protocols with PACTOR III bandwidths for permanent deployment as an Emergency Communications Resource. I know one of the individuals who is working on the hardware control protocols, professionally, for the joint FEMA ARRL network. Don't give me the it ain't so crap - I've seen it first hand for more than 10 years. Only when ARRL proposes to the FCC that semi-automatic stations be subject to the same rules as any other automatically controlled station will your denials have any validity. 73, ... Joe, W4TV Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
OK... before we go too far astray, let's get this thread back on track here. The issue of the thread is Use, or lack thereof, of Logbook of the World, and why or why not. Delving into the reasons why many are unhappy or worse with ARRL HQ is another subject, and frankly, it really does not belong on a DX thread. But that's my fault for letting it get that far. Bottom line is that (a) Logbook of the World has the potential to become a great resource, and (b) not everyone will use it. The reasons vary. We've already seen quite a few of them already mentioned on this thread. But, as I think I've stated before, recall that the primary purpose of LotW is to provide electronic confirmations as a supplement -- not replacement -- for traditional QSL'ing. Personally, I like LotW. But I will still send out for QSL cards. My own reasons are very simple, and include: (1) Tradition. I date back to 1969 as an SWL, 1972 first licensed. I still have almost all of my cards. There is a magic to many of them, the ability to recall a distanct-memory QSO just by holding that card, that electronic logging will never replace. And I don't expect it to. (2) Collecting. I like collecting cards. Pure and simple. And I'm willing to pay the price to do so... at least now that I can again. (3) Permanence. Nothing, not even QSL cards, lasts forever. But computers crash, logs are lost and sometimes never recovered (I'm still hunting for backups from some old contest logs in CT 8 CT 9 lost when my old, old 386SX shack computer's hard drive threw some bearings). Physical printouts let me recreate logs... still, I'll always have that card to confirm. One last thing to consider. You find many contest logs on LotW, and I think there will be more as time goes by. The reason is very simple... a contest weekend can literally generate hundreds of QSO's for a station -- thousands for a M/S or M/M effort. Many contest stations complain about the cost of confirming, in one fell swoop, those many, many QSO's -- and you have to, to some degree, or you risk that station NOT calling you in an upcoming contest. [And every time I got involved in a thread on that subject on other reflectors, I'd always get emails from the operators of a particular contest station telling me how expensive QSL'ing was, etc etc. Ironically, that was never the unnamed station I'd been talking about... and let's not get into a station owner who'll spend thousands on antennas, coax, and rigs, but begrudges a hundred or three dollars for QSL'ing]. LotW solves that problem. A contest station can upload his log, give instant confirmation (upon their also doing so) to the many stations who work them, thus giving the other guys the credits they need for DXCC, WAS, or eventually other awards. No excuses. Now, some will never take to LotW. Some are old-fashioned. Some are ornery and/or set in their ways. Some have hand written logs dating back so far, they're afraid to start something new and never get around to inputting the old ones. So be it. I for one will gladly lend a hand to anyone I can, who needs help getting set up, or help converting paper logs (and be thankful I switched to electronic logging in pfs:File over 20 years ago... if you ever saw my handwriting, you'd understand!) The offer stands. If you choose not to accept it, I'll still respect you in the morning. 73, ron w3wn Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
[Fwd: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW]
Thank you, Ron, for telling it like it is!! Bud Morin, K9ZT Original Message Subject:RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:19:12 -0400 From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org OK, well, let's see here: (1) Regulation by bandwith. Poorly written, poorly explained, IMHO, something I did mention to my Division Director prior to the petition withdrawl. I think that the intent of the petition was to (a) allow US amateurs the flexibility that amateurs in most of the rest of the world have, to move sub-band boundaries as conditions warrant, and (b) be flexible enough to accomodate new modes of operation as they become accepted, without lengthy waits on FCC rules changes. The alleged more room for PACTOR III robots cannard is being spread by a small group of anti-PACTOR III/anti-WinLink individuals (there are several running posts on QRZ.COM on these and related subjects) who never can seem to be bothered, when asked, for verifiable facts. (One of these characters now refuses to answer me -- I'm a winlid and an ARRL shill because I kept asking simple questions that he ignored, deflected, or declined to answer. Oh yes, I'm now also a hinternetter, whatever that's supposed to be). There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. (2) It's amazing to me how many people claim that ARRL supported No Code, which about equals the number who claim that ARRL failed to support No Code. The two sides about wash out, except, of course, that either way, the League is an appropriate straw man. I strongly suspect that the reality of the situation was the League being privately informed by some FCC staffers in the know that No Code was going to become a reality whether they liked it or not, so better to prepare for it. That, to me, says a lot about how the FCC looks on the Amateur Service (can anyone say BPL?), but that's another thread for another time. Suffice to say that we should be glad that we had the League doing what it could in the face of often appears to be a Federal bureaucracy that is determined to do what's best... for the bureaucracy... (3) Yes, the Spanish language tests. That's another one that's been so blown out of proportion. Have you actually read what was proposed? Or are you just reacting to the xenophobia out there? The League pointed out to the other VEC's that VE teams were, on their own, translatting the tests into Spanish. They proposed, in essence, that the NCVEC develop a set of standard tests, so that there would be consistancy in what is ALREADY BEING DONE. Apparently enough of the other VEC's disagreed, so that was that. But make no mistake. VE teams ARE translatting AND GIVING the tests in Spanish. It's not against FCC rules! So this was NOT, contrary to some beliefs, an attempt to do something new. Merely to standardize an existing practice. Oh, and don't forget that Puerto Rico, which is US territory, is primarily a Spanish speaking area. (Lovely island; went there for our honeymoon, but we took the wrong road into the rain forest and didn't get to see too much. One of these days...) (4) ICOM sponsorship. Hmm. Let's see. ICOM offers to sponsor the costs involved with certain contests, which helps keep the costs down -- and there are costs involved in running a contest. We see it every day in some professional sports (have you looked at a baseball stadium lately? to say nothing of NASCAR?). So exactly how does ICOM sponsoring some contests take the American out of the ARRL? Besides... how many major manufacturers are out there anyway? And where are they? Could be that no one else offered. Maybe someone will in the future. So what? Now: Have you talked with your ARRL Director lately? Or your Section Manager? Have you told them how you feel? Have you presented them with facts to try to persuade them? If not... why not? If you don't like the way things are going, you're going to have to do more than kvetch on a reflector. Or nothing will change. It's that simple. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: W2AGN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: It is your choice John, whether or not to join, or even like the League. But to make such an inflammatory comment... what facts do you have to back up that opinion? 1. Their recent attempt at Regulation by Bandwidth which was a transparent attempt to make more room for PACTOR III robots. This was done mostly behind the backs of the membership. Finally, after losing a LOT of members, thanks to Skip Tenny exposing this plot, they withdrew their petition, blaming widespread misconception
Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Charles Harpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (08/26/2007 21:35) And u asked... LogBook Of The World why I do not use this great service: 1. I log onto old fashioned paper. 2. I choose to do other much more interesting things than data entry. 3. I find LBOTW very difficult to use. And I have tried, and had help, still failed to get it. 4. Upload times are long and expensive. 5. I am just set in my ways, a product of a maturing factor. 73 Charles Harpole, HS0ZCW [EMAIL PROTECTED] And more important, it is controlled by the ARRL., who are NOT friends of Amateur radio. John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
