The AM Forum
March 29, 2024, 02:05:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ARRL - My Rethink  (Read 49780 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4620



« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2006, 08:34:28 PM »

For me, the refusal to listen to members, the perpetuation of the "ol'boy" network that prevents good peeps from running for director, and a worthless piece of crap "offcial organ" (read into that what you will) still is, albiet slightly, outweighed by guys like Ed Hare as well as a dogged defense against encroachments such as BPL. 

It is an absolute shame that Ed got run off this board by one or two knuckleheads who chose to mount personal attacks on him, under the presumption that he was fair game as a scapegoat for anti-ARRL sentiment.  Angry
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2006, 09:29:00 PM »

John,
Ed may not actually have been "run off" by the aforementioned knuckleheads. I was of the opinion that the Back-Room Boys in Newington would eventually smack him around for participating in a freelance dialogue with us, since no such conversation could come to a good end (theirs).

So, knuckleheads may have provided an easy segue out of here.

THAT's a shame indeed.

Logged
Jim, W5JO
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2506


« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2006, 09:40:59 PM »

In past decades, I felt the ARRL was off course and blind.  I still think it has many problems lurking out there, but in the past two or three years, I detect a bit of straying from the old way of doing things.

My director actually reads my email messages and replys with a thoughtful answer.  He also has told me that there are a couple of other directors that share his skepticsim of some of the issues that are posted against the organization on this board as examples as to why they are out of touch with the average operator.  I do not make smoke about the issues as I communicate with him.  I agree with most of the critics here and on other boards, so goes my communications with him.  I have read in the minutes that he actually does as he says in his messages.

I believe there is a movement of hams like you guys who are voicing their opinion which is causing a change in the ARRL.  I personally know Jim Haney and he was much more aware of the fact a change of direction was needed and I think he set the wheel in motion.  It will take some time, but I believe, positive changes will happen sooner than we speculate.
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2006, 10:29:09 AM »

Jim,
Haynie was very disingenuous with me as he prepared to push a threatened bandwidth proposal. In a telephone call that he initiated to me, he asked "What bandwidth would the AMers settle for?" On the surface, it sounded like an overture to collect an opinion (mine). But my skepticism about the League's motives prompted me to ask him to consider that NO such constraint can be applied in a locked-down, full-time regulation.

My response and question was met with a combativness that surprised even me. He later came out and quoted me on a QRZ.com thread that "all AMers want to run as much bandwidth as they want."

There are other examples of Haynie's behavior, including mismatched answers to legitimate questions not involving AM, and his tendancy to get flustered, lose his train of thought, and come off sounding frightened that anyone should dare to question the League or it's intended point of view.

I'm waiting to see what the new guy brings to the table. But his early endorsement of the discredited Bandwidth Petition from the ARRL bodes poorly for any real change in the political climate in Newington. He will also be bolloxed, as have his predecessors, by the pre-emptive powers of the highest paid non-elected staff administration at the League, specifically, Messers. Sumner and Rinaldo.
Logged
W3DBB
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2006, 08:05:00 AM »

.
Logged

Doug

beautiful downtown Strodes Mills, Pennsylvania
W2INR
Radio Syracuse
Founding
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1173

Syracuse Radio W2INR


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2006, 10:00:30 AM »

Quote
Ed may not actually have been "run off" by the aforementioned knuckleheads. I was of the opinion that the Back-Room Boys in Newington would eventually smack him around for participating in a freelance dialogue with us,

I have not seen any proof of the ARRL's actions with Ed but I do know the treatment he recieved here from as John so politely put it "knuckleheads" was unexcusable.

What happened to Ed here was embarrasing and certainly against our standards. It's a shame .

It won't happen again here.
Logged

G - The INR


Amateur Weather Station KNYSYRAC64
Creator - owner - AMfone.net - 2001 - 2010
Founding Member - NEAR-Fest
SWLR-RNŘ54
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2006, 12:13:49 PM »

Ed Hare is substantially thick-skinned, according to how I've seen him exchange with people privately and publicly, including myself.

That said, I want to associate myself with Gary's vow against poor treatment of guests and participants on this website.

There's no place for serious but petty barbs and juvenile insults. If someone wants to put across their point of view, let them try to convince others with logic and reason that are expressed fully and respectfully.



Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2006, 03:13:54 PM »

Ed's treatment here is/was a verifiable fact. What the powers that be at the ARRL did or didn't do is pure conjecture. Let's not confuse the two.


Quote
John,
Ed may not actually have been "run off" by the aforementioned knuckleheads. I was of the opinion that the Back-Room Boys in Newington would eventually smack him around for participating in a freelance dialogue with us, since no such conversation could come to a good end (theirs).

So, knuckleheads may have provided an easy segue out of here.

THAT's a shame indeed.
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2006, 07:23:29 PM »

Um, I labelled it opinion, but thanks for the emphasis.
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2006, 08:56:39 PM »

Quote
Ed may not actually have been "run off" by the aforementioned knuckleheads.


Of course, the "opinion" flies in the face of the facts.

Quote
So, knuckleheads may have provided an easy segue out of here

And you want to take Pete to task for posting good things in defense of the ARRL. But you'll post pure conjecture to make the ARRL look bad. That's the emphasis here and it's quite unfair.
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2006, 08:44:25 AM »

"And you want to take Pete to task for posting good things in defense of the ARRL. But you'll post pure conjecture to make the ARRL look bad. That's the emphasis here and it's quite unfair. "

I tried . . . to stay out of this as it is so polarizing . . . even more than I am comfortable with . . . oh well . . .

If the ARRL was doing the job expected of it there would be no issue with Petes postings. However, when posting "good things" comes across as thinly veiled deception of the majority of actions, not in accord with the wishes of the membership (as indicated on this and many other ham boards), the actions are suspect and insulting. Pete has become the mechanism for transmitting this to the AM board. As such, even though I share an amicable on the air association with him, I think his posts represent the uncomfortable fact that we are being told to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  . . . that someone else knows what is best for us . . . that we shouldn't question or try to provide input . . . in fact, such efforts are often met with indifference and/or disdain. That's why Petes posts are often viewed with suspicion and even scorn.

As for mistreatment on the board . . . an exchange of ideas is good . . . crossing the line to abuse is not . . sometimes the relative position to that line is difficult to see from a small sample . . . .

I rethought my position on ARRL membership and am still a life member . . . I just need to figure out what to do with it . . . "changing from within" seems to be an illusion . . .

k3xf/0
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2006, 01:07:47 PM »

That's why Petes posts are often viewed with suspicion and even scorn.



I rethought my position on ARRL membership and am still a life member . . . I just need to figure out what to do with it . . . "changing from within" seems to be an illusion . . .

k3xf/0

Here’s some more “suspicious” going’s on with the folks at Newington.

NEWINGTON, CT, May 30, 2006: The ARRL Foundation has announced the recipients of 51 scholarship awards for the 2006-2007 academic year. Congratulations to these scholarship winners!
For the complete story, go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/05/30/103/?nc=1


Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Art
Guest
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2006, 01:34:32 PM »

There you go . . . well done . . . I would be the first to admit it . . . 51 people well served . . .

Question . . . do occasional good deeds outweigh misrepresentation at large? . . . . . . Would you stay with a significant other who abuses you if they are nice 'sometimes'? How much is 'enough'. Many think the ARRL is not stable in the good/guided by constituency/effective vs. deceptive/damaging to the service/self serving balance.

I respect the heck out of you Pete . . . but we disagree on the net value of the ARRL as it is currently managed. I know I won't convince you to change your stripes but if you are bound to emphasize the positive accomplishments of the ARRL disproportionately to its total works you will continue to encounter questions about your objectivity. As do I, by the way, . . . without conviction and the willingness to act upon it, we are simply staunch supporters and perpetrators . . . . . . . of mediocrity.

-ap
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2006, 03:00:07 PM »

Maybe you should run a list of "good things" versus "bad things", say over the last six months, and then determine their "net value".


* eye_ball.gif (17.95 KB, 80x60 - viewed 825 times.)

* eye_ball.gif (17.95 KB, 80x60 - viewed 819 times.)
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2006, 04:54:39 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
Maybe you should run a list of "good things" versus "bad things", say over the last six months, and then determine their "net value".

Its not just the last six months. To paraphrase Stephen Coovey, "They made an extremely large withdrawl from my emotional bank account". Personally, they will be in arrears for a long time to come. Once again its the 'Attaboys' versus the 'Awwshits'. Taking in the last six months is merely cherry picking, at least from my viewpoint.
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2006, 05:53:38 PM »

Maybe you should run a list of "good things" versus "bad things", say over the last six months, and then determine their "net value".

Six months? How about the past forty-two years? Starting with their boneheaded "incentive licensing" proposal and continuing with RM-11306, the League has been screwing us for at least that long. Yes, there are a few good things, such as Ed Hare's relentless battle against the threat of BPL. But, looking at the League's record and the entire picture of this organization, those good things stand out like icebergs in the Caribbean! And they are about as rare as Eskimos in Florida!

Geeez Phil, if you have to go back 42 years to find something "bad", what's there to discuss. That's older then some people on this board and really at this time deserves a "who cares". It's water well over the dam. ARRL proposed and supported it and the FCC actually made the ruling. Whether the FCC went along with ARRL's argument for passage,, or they passed it on their own, is something for the FCC to answer. So what do you have that is sooooooooooo bad with the ARRL. Go back 5 years, 7 years, and you can throw in RM-11306, and RM-11305 for that matter, since the majority of the general population who responded with comments were against both of them.

Let's keep any of your personal petitions/proposals to the FCC off the list.

And, I'm sure you'll also probably bring up that the ARRL is really only a book publishing Company, so I'd like to hear of some other ways you think the ARRL can generate revenue to support the staff including Ed Hare and their battles with BPL, etc. etc.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2006, 06:13:18 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
So what do you have that is sooooooooooo bad with the ARRL.


Well for starters, how about how they treated Carl and played their 'Conflict of Interest' card, when they had already set a precedence ~10 years ago? That has all the earmarks of 'good-ol-boy' politics. That might be water under the bridge now but what happens when some other candidate comes along that doesn't "tow the party line?"
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2006, 07:16:47 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
So what do you have that is sooooooooooo bad with the ARRL.


Well for starters, how about how they treated Carl and played their 'Conflict of Interest' card, when they had already set a precedence ~10 years ago? That has all the earmarks of 'good-ol-boy' politics. That might be water under the bridge now but what happens when some other candidate comes along that doesn't "tow the party line?"

One could believe that the current rules for candidates are fuzzy enough to cause misinterpretation based on a candidates current or former background as to whether there might be a “conflict of interest”. It seems that the ARRL also agrees since this was discussed at either a Board meeting or Executive Committee Meeting recently. The charge is to clarify the current “rules for candidacy” so that there can be no misinterpretation going forward. Carl’s legacy in all this is that he brought forth some of the ambiguity of the current rules.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4620



« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2006, 07:36:49 PM »

I think his legacy would be more accurately stated that he came to the table with ideas unpalatable to the League, they found a supposed "potential future conflict of interest", and revisited their rules to justify their despicable action against him.

Pete, you know I'm not a knee-jerk ARRL hater, but the more I think about their treatment of him the angrier I get.  My renewal notice came several days ago and I haven't decided what action I'm gonna take yet.
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2006, 07:45:33 PM »


Geeez Phil, if you have to go back 42 years to find something "bad", what's there to discuss.

No, I don't have to go back 42 years to find something bad. I went back that far only to illustrate how long this pernicious organization has been screwing us! RM-11306 is but one of the most recent examples of malfeasance on the part of the League.

Hmmm, and in your example, they are the only group that has showboated malfeasance in the name of "better" amateur radio. You need to rethink that one.
So, 42 years ago they did something that made many unhappy and recently they did something that made many unhappy but you failed to illustrate anything in between.


And, I'm sure you'll also probably bring up that the ARRL is really only a book publishing Company, so I'd like to hear of some other ways you think the ARRL can generate revenue to support the staff including Ed Hare and their battles with BPL, etc. etc.

If only the League were just a book publishing company! We would be far better off if they would become a for-profit corporation, limit their activities to publishing books and magazines, and stay out of the regulatory arena. You love to bring up Ed Hare and the fight against BPL. Ed's work is admirable, but it is like a pearl in a vast sea of sewage, given the League's pathetic record over the past 42 years. And their publications leave much to be desired these days, as the ARRL Handbook has been watered down somewhat and QST isn't worth the paper it's printed on...even for wrapping fish or training puppies!
Quote

Advertising dollars can also pay a lot of bills each month. It probably makes little difference to the ARRL if members read QST or not. The advertisers think you do, so they keep on advertising and that revenue stream helps pay the bills. Their publications have to appeal even to the non-techy types, which in today's world, is probably the greater majority of amateur radio operators.

Let's keep any of your personal petitions/proposals to the FCC off the list.

I had no reason to mention them in this thread until you just did. The petition seeking to ban or at least limit the activities of "bulletin stations" (read that, "wannabe broadcasters") on our HF phone bands was denied in the FCC's "omnibus" NPRM two years ago and you will see my name in several of the footnotes in that NPRM. At least I care enough about amateur radio to speak for myself on regulatory matters, rather than blindly following a bunch of out-of-touch good ol' boys in Newington, Connecticut, including an official from your division who thinks that our outmoded phone subband allocation on 40 meters is by international treaty, rather than by domestic regulation on the part of the FCC. This guy is representing you and the rest of the League's members in the Hudson Division?
Quote

Misinterpretation of the spoken word sometimes works on both sides of the fence. I won't defend something I know nothing about since I wasn't there to hear both sides of the discussion.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2006, 08:06:01 PM »

I think his legacy would be more accurately stated that he came to the table with ideas unpalatable to the League, they found a supposed "potential future conflict of interest", and revisited their rules to justify their despicable action against him.

Pete, you know I'm not a knee-jerk ARRL hater, but the more I think about their treatment of him the angrier I get.  My renewal notice came several days ago and I haven't decided what action I'm gonna take yet.

I don’t remember much of what Carl stated he would bring to the table if he were elected. What “ideas unpalatable to the League” are you referring too? It seemed to me most of this ideas were “typical political ramble” to gather as many votes from all sides. I believe he was also an advocate of “no code” and an official of No Code International. I don’t believe there was anything sinister or personal here, but deciding to wave strict interpretation of the rules in his face during this election, might make one believe otherwise. Hopefully, in three years, the rules will be clarified enough, that he can announce his candidacy again.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2006, 08:25:38 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
I don’t remember much of what Carl stated he would bring to the table if he were elected. What “ideas unpalatable to the League” are you referring too? It seemed to me most of this ideas were “typical political ramble” to gather as many votes from all sides.

After a little investigation here on the board, I went back to when Carl, WK3C first showed up. His candidacy statement isn't working, (at least not for me but there is a link there if you want to see for yourself). Here is the link to his home page:
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

Ironically Pete, you were the one that originally posted his Candidacy Statement.
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2006, 09:43:54 PM »

Quote
... If the ARRL was doing the job expected of it there would be no issue with Petes postings. However, when posting "good things" comes across as thinly veiled deception of the majority of actions...

And what are anti-ARRL postings based entirely on conjecture? It seems to me there is enough legitimate fodder for taking the ARRL to task without making stuff up. That's all I'm saying. Don't read my post as either a condemnation or confirmation of Pete's posts. He can speak for himself.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2006, 11:24:46 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
I don’t remember much of what Carl stated he would bring to the table if he were elected. What “ideas unpalatable to the League” are you referring too? It seemed to me most of this ideas were “typical political ramble” to gather as many votes from all sides.

After a little investigation here on the board, I went back to when Carl, WK3C first showed up. His candidacy statement isn't working, (at least not for me but there is a link there if you want to see for yourself). Here is the link to his home page:
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

Ironically Pete, you were the one that originally posted his Candidacy Statement.

I read his platform statements but didn't see anything there to raise ARRL eyebrows. However, his web site rebuttal dissertation, after he was denied being a candidate, surely would/or has probably raised some eyebrows.

Article 11 in the Articles of Association is the one in question. It currently says:
"No person shall be eligible for the office of Director, Vice Director, President, Vice President, or Treasurer who has not been a Full member of the League for at least four continuous years immediately preceding nomination and throughout the subsequent term of office, nor shall any person be eligible who has not held continuously during that period a valid authorization as a radio amateur in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of the United States. No person shall be eligible for, or hold, the office of Director, Vice Director, President or Vice President whose business connections are of such nature that he could gain financially through the shaping of the affairs of the League by the Board, or by the improper exploitation of his office for the furtherance of his own aims or those of his employer. The primary test of eligibility under this Article shall be the freedom from commercial or governmental connections of such nature that his influence in the affairs of the League could be used for his private benefit."

Item 39 of the January 2006 BoD Meeting:
 39. Mr. Bellows continued discussion focusing on Article 11 of the Articles of Association. He described a range of options the Board may consider as it works to update this Article.

So, probably due to Carl’s rumblings, and the inconsistency of following their own rules with past Directors/Vice Directors who may have had similar circumstances as Carl’s, an update is in order. Time will tell.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Art
Guest
« Reply #49 on: June 01, 2006, 09:12:43 AM »

"Maybe you should run a list of "good things" versus "bad things", say over the last six months, and then determine their "net value". "

Marvelous debate fodder but a waste of time . . . the results are already in . . . and you don't get a recount . . .

The impression that the ARRL has earned is it is self-serving at best and a detriment to amateur radio at worst. IMO, this is not a lack of 'PR' of the good things the ARRL does. (The ARRL takes every opportunity to blow its own horn via its publishing and other channels to the extent such emissions are lessened in their effectiveness.) Rather, It is an opinion of; effectiveness and usefulness, the marked disdain for the input of its members, and misguided ARRL initiatives, held by many (apparently an increasing number) amateur radio ops.

I do not believe that the ARRL is on a path that will lead to better amateur radio . . . . and I am not alone in this opinion. Turning this around is not a function of advertising but one of positive change. Something the current ARRL administration is apparently unable to envision or accomplish.

 
 







 
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.105 seconds with 18 queries.