ARRL Hudson Division webinar recording

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W0PV, Feb 13, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
  1. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I knew there wouldn't be an answer for your guys HOA vs Land Use lawyer charade, nor the "elitist" alienation gaffe. Happy trollin' amigo!
     
  2. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'm not going to go digging into or debating "Who is the more qualified lawyer". That 's what the ARRL Board is for.

    Your standard seems to be "Do what I want; if not then Mike (and the ARRL Board) is disdainful, isolated and biased!".

    I'm not trolling. All my posts have been on topic and accurate. Besides, I was replying to YOUR post. No trolling involved.
     
    N0TZU and KC8VWM like this.
  3. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    BTW, While Mike is a direct guy, and his response to Ria was less than eloquent and soothing, the takeaway from their discussion is the Mike DOES listen to his constituents. He was familiar with Ria's comments from his reading the ARRL Voices board.

    Again, Mike was not saying DX'ers and Contesters are elitist. Rather, catering to them rather than serving ALL the members would be elitist.

    Mike also stated that he was familiar with Fred K1VR's recommendations on the Parity Act, but feels they are not appropriate. He is following the advice of paid counsel. He isn't ignoring Fred. Just has different view. Fred could be the greatest expert on the matter and still be wrong or have a strategy that doesn't agree with the Boards goals or inclinations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
    N0TZU and KC8VWM like this.
  4. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'll take a guy who is direct and honest about the crap going on at the ARRL and telling it like it is, over anyone who paints pretty pictures of purple unicorns and rainbows any day. Sorry if the truth should offend anybody right? That's one of the primary reasons why Lisenco is a lightning rod for controversy in the first place. He tells it like it is and some people become offended and don't like that.

    As far as I am concerned, a "lightning rod" kind of person is the perfect individual for this position. Otherwise, feel free to choose a low energy, lethargic and non responsive "follow the crowd" kind of director instead.

    Excuse me for telling the truth, but I find it incredibly stupid when hams are bitching about the ARRL not taking any proactive action about anything and when someone does comes along who actually does something positive for a change, they are instantly chastised by the membership for doing what they wanted them to do. ...That makes perfect sense huh?

    Incidentally, "negotiation" means nothing whatsoever to people who file lawsuits who are on a hell bent bent mission to cause maximum damage and destruction to the organization. Not sure what world you are living in exactly, but that is the reality of the situation.

    In my estimation, you are basically blaming the victim for not being "Midwestern nice enough" in an effort to avoid a lawsuit that's questionable in the first place.

    You can label that approach as "new york swagger" if you like, but I prefer to call it real world reality, truth and plain common sense. Please explain why you would rather have things any other way.

    Respectfully, please take some time to think about and reconsider your position on the matter.

    Charles - KC8VWM
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
    N0TZU likes this.
  5. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Now that's some real chutzpah, a "lighting rod" lamented as a "victim" because its struck by a bolt.

    A lightning rod not properly "grounded" is far more potentially destructive then none at all.

    73, John, WØPV
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
    ND6M likes this.
  6. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I spent a lot of my time and listened to quite a lot of the recording. Frankly I found nothing improper from Mr. Lisenco. He has his views which he explained, admitted that communication could have been better on bylaws with the membership, explained why he believes the parity act is a good thing and so forth. I don't agree with all of his views but so what, reasonable people can differ. As for the tone, I found it not unusual for someone from that part of the country.

    Sorry, but after wading through many forum pages over the months and now this lengthy recording, I'm done trying to listen to W0PV and fellow travelers about their problems with the ARRL. Although there are a few valid concerns, they continually harp on innumerable superficial things which for some reason they believe are horrible treasonous crimes.

    They are like the little boy who cried wolf, and I have better things to do with my time.
     
  7. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Justifying the position by refuting the competence of K1VR relative to the matter is hardly a way to sway support from the vocal "elite". Expect more thunder ...

    Following the advice of "paid" counsel toward what objective? That is the overall question being raised by concerned members. When so many obviously equally or better qualified counselors are VOLUNTEERING or being paid by others for their valuable time to illustrate problems and offer solutions.

    A most interesting aspect of this debate on ARPA is how MANY well qualified ham and non-ham attorneys with real court room experience in antenna cases have raised a warning flag about the language. I repeat, MANY. The most concerning opinion they raise is the current ARPA bill's probable effects on existing antenna situations, even to those not yet constrained by contracts.

    Meanwhile the ARRL clings to a SOLE SOURCE of legal advice. I have not seen even one CONCURRING OPINION obtained outside of the League's General Counsel that is in agreement that the current ARPA bill doesn't poorly trade-off with existing successful HOA constrained hams or would be a net gain legally for a majority of amateur station situations.

    This is not just some petty legal matter; its major Federal legislation that will affect all of amateur radio in the USA. IMO, obtaining and abiding to a consensus of multiple legal opinions is an essential fiduciary duty of the ARRL BoD.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
  8. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    DOH! ZAP !! Now I'm a VICTIM like N2YBB too !!! :eek: :rolleyes:

    In that fable the wolves eventually do eat all the sheep.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
  9. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The clear trend of your posts consists of a hatchet job and personal attacks on Mike N2YBB plus this gem from Groucho, 'I'm against it!"
     
  10. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure I agree the ARPA bill could be better and no one is suggesting the ARRL is perfect in every way.

    However, they do have the right idea and the purpose of ARPA isn't intended to destroy amateur radio. That's just plain silly. It takes a lot of hard work to get things like ARPA done and it's probably not going to be perfect for everyone in every way. I would like to see ANY legislation before congress that's perfect in every way. It just doesn't exist.

    There's still a lot of work required at the FCC regulatory level even after it's received it's congressional blessings and is passed as law for that matter. Lisenco clearly says that in the recording too, but that fact is often conveniently overlooked and ignored by many. They want everything to be perfect starting immediately from the beginning, but in reality it doesn't work that way. There are still hills to climb, but you have to get your foot wedged in the door first and this bill before congress is an excellent starting point.

    However, ARPA is a pretty darn good start in the right direction. Even Lisenco himself admits ARPA isn't perfect, but it gives us something to work with as opposed to getting us nothing to work with at all. Everyone knows it will require some fine tuning over time and if you should have any additional legal resources that can help make ARPA better, why not propose them to your director instead of tearing the ARRL down?

    Usually when people are asked to chip in and offer positive contributions to something like ARPA, this is the part where we usually hear crickets chirping. For some people, it's much easier to condemn the bill and the ARRL instead of putting forth the actual work and support required to help get the job done.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018

Share This Page