The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

At the risk of inviting more tomatoes, I have to point out that if the bill was properly and well-written, it would not be possible for this debate to continue. The clear and unambiguous meaning, one way or the other, would be clear to everybody from the text, on the first reading of the plain language.

 

It's evidently clear the bill was introduced and is specifically intended for those with restrictive covenants where they preclude communications in the amateur radio service.

You do of course realize you just asked me to show you the blatantly obvious don't you?

I am humored by your opinion.

 

It's only ambiguous because people are spreading misinformation (probably anti-ARRL people) and adding words to the bill that are simply not written there.

 

I agree. Their name is A...R...R...L.

 

The ARRL has absolutely no interest in sabotaging their own bill by spreading misinformation.

However, I can see how doing this would further an anti-ARRL agenda.

 

ARRL employees have no choice but to spread disinformation. If the bill has a problem, they are prohibited from discussing it publicly, by their employment rules. So anything they say about ARPA in public is, by definition, only one side of the story.

 

There is no "other side of the story" unless you're wearing a tin foil hat.

Do you understand why this bill exists and what the bill is specifically intended to do?

I can assure you, there's no top secret clandestine ARRL conspiracy going on here.

 

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said that if there was a problem with the bill, nobody at ARRL could tell you because the ARRL employment rules forbid it.

I know this is a true statement because it was someone in a leadership position at ARRL who told me that was the case.

 

As I thought, you can't show where it says what you stated so you revert to intuition. Not smart!

As always, you add nothing to the debate, can't defend anything you say and won't admit you are wrong. But you are consistent...

 

You can claim that, but that doesn't make anything you just wrote above as true and factual.

 

I wonder if the debates between "flat earth" and "round earth" sounded like this?

 

You have just posted a statement about an unknown individual at ARRL without providing any proof, basis or fact.

 

Not at all. The loyalty requirements have been well documented in other threads on QRZ. And I'm not about to quote and/or name someone who told me something privately, just to prove that my knowledge is first-hand, when you could get the same information for yourself by doing a Google search.

 

When you are making a point about something, the burden of proof rests with the individual who is posting the comments. Not the person who is reading the comments.

 

Don't let him change the subject if you can.

I don't have the patience to deal with anyone who refuses to understand. I'm of course assuming it's by intent rather than ego or some self-esteem problem.