Senate passes National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5515

Your opinion.

It's not OK; personal attacks matter A LOT.

 

Except they are opinions and not personal attacks. That's a huge difference. You apparently have issues here.

 

These are really glaring flaws that you have made.

So alas, SCHOOLED AGAIN, You Shall Be:

The key word is not WANT (Or NEED): It's FREEDOM!

1) In your very poor and convoluted argument, you have equated LIMITING antennas with the fulfillment of a perceived public need.
However, there is NO defined public NEED to limit antennas...None whatsoever!

2) Furthermore, there is NO REQUIRED NEED BY The Government in order to Petition The Government to change OR negate what WE find to be ARBITRARY.
In a Representative Republic (or a Constitutional Monarchy for that matter... Go Team Canada!)
we can make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to ANY particular cause that we see fit.
LOVE that Representative Republic, that Dominion, AND that Commonwealth! English Law Rocks The World, Baby!

This eliminates EVERY "Want" and "Need" argument that you have made in the past, in the here and now, and in the future.

3) Adding something so INCREDIBLY SILLY to your list in a vain attempt to support your argument, i.e., remote operation is beside the point, and QUITE SO during an emergency,
It is inherently obvious that you don't understand remote operation which operates via THE INTERNET,
via a connection that will likely be NOT working at either your residence, the remote site, or more likely...BOTH!
This is a FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT central to Remote Operation and I don't know how you could have possibly missed it.


You can't win an argument without valid premises and a conclusion.
Simply making the list longer of options that are not options in a Mass Disaster (such as Remote Operation!)
doesn't help an argument that fell to the curb MONTHS ago, and not just here but across other platforms.

I would hope that you would set down with a few books and bone up a bit on The Constitution,
and the technical aspects of Remote Operation.

No Cliff's Notes, Please. Instead, Back to Basics from the very start:
King John and The Magna Carta FIRST... Before The Constitution.
And of Course: DC Circuits, before Remote Operation... you know:
Doorbell, battery, and switch kind of stuff... like what happens if the wires are cut between any of these three,
say like for example: if a wind or a tree knocks them out in a bad storm.


73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV BILL

 

YET ANOTHER CLASSIC WA7PRC QUOTE: "they've been pushing this legislation that's expected to benefit a tiny minority of hams in HOAs, against tens of millions of their neighbors."

Straw Man Argument! How will tens of Millions of neighbours BENEFIT, if this legislation fails?
Not ONE IOTA.

How did you MISS that day in High School Civics class when the Teacher covered protecting the Minority FROM the Majority... did you go Bowling instead or something?

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

Now it's MY TURN to say: "Wow... Just Wow!"

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV

 

Did you miss the part where The Senate sends the bill BACK to the House, and then they go over the respective amendments to add/modify/delete?

 

"it's rather like our House of Commons and House of Lords"

Yes. So we are going through that here. As a separate bill, and as part of an omnibus bill.

The National Defence Bill is sort of an American Tradition, that sails through Government every year. Tacking on stuff to it is part of that tradition.

THAT being said? I'd rather watch your House of Commons Live on Television than a Heavyweight Fight Match!
AWESOME SMACKDOWN ENTERTAINMENT!

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

What was great was that we FINALLY were given the chance to vote in a Referendum over the European Union . . . as I'm sure you know, we (the people) voted to LEAVE and become an independant nation again.

However, although our current Government are trying their best to negotiate a Leaving Deal, the problem is that about 70% of all the politicians (of all political parties) are AGAINST leaving the EU, and are trying to scupper the leaving plans!

I've always found it interesting that you only seem to have to the two political parties in the USA . . . . (or do you actually have some smaller parties too?)

Although we have the two Big parties over here, there are about 5 other smaller parties with politicians in Parliament.

Roger G3YRO

 

Oh, we have smaller parties. The one that I am a member of is the Libertarian Party.
It's harder for smaller parties for example, to get on State ballots.
What really limits us here is that in our system, we really don't have Coalition Governments. Instead, it is a "winner take all" system.
On the other hand, we don't have a 'No confidence" vote, which I consider to be a good thing: So you aren't changing governments other than at the normal time periods.
We of course do have impeachment and so there's a recall mechanism there, but only for a High Crime.
It will No Doubt be a LONG TIME before either one or both of the two big parties becomes obsolete by virtue of a massive jumping of ship.
And that? It's actually...OKAY! our system has this mechanism to slowly change in that aspect over time....When Small Parties increase in membership,
it signals the larger parties that it's time for changes. And they do, even if begrudgingly. So it all works out fairly well, at least for us, anyway!
This helps (we hope) to prevent a "sudden" Tyranny, where a party could suddenly and quickly "Hijack" The Republic.
Government by Free Men? That's always complicated. Always. Always! And I Thank God for it.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV BILL

 

Technically, his posts are not personal attacks in the context of the forum rules. He knows how to go right to the line without crossing it.

However, they are ad hominem argument.

Definition of ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

• an ad hominem argument

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

• made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

 

And this thread is a good example of what ad hominem attack does for the person utlizing that strategy. Specifically, it distracted the thread from the tangible issues about four pages - some 40 posts worth. You can't lose an argument if you can avoid debating issues! Simple. The thread is now completely off the rails.

 

"And this thread is a good example of what adhominem attack does for the person utlizing that strategy...."

"1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect...."

Oh No, it's COMPLETELY on The Rails.
It's MUCH more about The Setting and the Scenario of Said Rails: WA7PRC finds himself intellectually perched upon a Jackass, heading East in a Rather Dark Tunnel, with a Huge Diesel Locomotive of Logic heading West on the said same set of rails. Whats More, said Locomotive has issued a "dahdahdidah" via whistle, and both Headlight and Cow Catcher are looming ever larger...

WA7PRC doesn't bring much to the table on intellect. It's all about his FEELINGS about what Government should (or in this case, should not) do. It completely negates the issue, let alone the Particilatory Process that we have to make Change. When called out on his Type II Errors in Logic, he simply parrots back the original error in logic, usually capped with a "really, just really." COMPLETELY set aside and ignored are his Silly Options in a mass disaster, like Remote Operation, or perhaps sitting in a park operating during a Tornado or a Double Flash. This really IS Akin to leaping out of a Giant Badger, and therefore taking the French Fort completely by suprise.

To be fair, he's not the only one who is attempting to hijack a serious effort at Change: There's the usual Mean Spirited Conga Line of Self Haters and One Liner Posters: You find THEM in EVERY walk of life, but HIS "argument" is Particularly lacking in Intellect, let alone Lustre. While I certainly agree that he (and others) have a complete right to post and express their Opinions, when his opinion AND Others lack FACTS, that is going to be outed across EVERY Open Platform of Debate EVERY time: The subject matter at hand is far too important to allow a hijack of The Facts. That's just how it's going to be.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV BILL

 

Is there anyone with a strong opinion about the good or the harm that would accompany ARPA passage - that has not already shared it? Certainly there are some that think sharing their view 100 times strengthens their argument. Hint: It doesn't. It just makes me wonder about your mental stability.

At this point the discussion should be about the process leading to passage of the NDAA. What is the schedule of that process, and will ARPA still be in any way associated with the NDAA when that process is completed. At this point it doesn't matter if you think a particular result would be good or bad. You can revive that debate if passage is actually achieved. And we know which ones like the sound of their own "voice" so much that they probably can not restrain themselves, ever.

 

At this point, I don't think there's anything anyone can do about it. It's in the House version but not in the Senate version. Eventually ... as with hundreds of other amendments ... the House and Senate will have to resolve the differences between the two versions of NDAA before it progresses.

I do not believe that it's a "sure thing" that it will stay in the final bill. Other people do believe it will survive.

The point is as you have suggested, there's nothing any further argument about it can accomplish at this point.

IF it passes, then we're stuck with it and the next step is the FCC rulemaking process. That's the next ... and only ... point at which any of us can have any input on it either way before it becomes regulation.

So if we want to argue about it, the argument needs to change from the way it's been going the past several years - i.e. it's pointless to argue any more about "WANT" or "NEED" - and shift to if or how the FCC might be influenced to write the language of the actual regulations called for in the bill.

IF it does not pass, then it's dead and will not come back again in the foreseeable future. I was told by my Division Director back in January, that ARRL is not going to pursue another attempt at an HOA antenna bill after this one.

 

That's interesting! "If at first you don't succeed, give up".