RAF submits restructuring petition to the FCC

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w8vom @ Feb. 22 2004,200)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From N4ZFU:>>Last time I checked, the ARRL is the spokesperson for the ham community, based on total membership.<<

That is the whole point! The ARRL does not Speak for ALL AMATEURS Nor do they Listen to all of it's members.In fact..they rushed their proposal off to the FCC (before) ARRL members could demand amendments.

The RAF is a grassroots organization...EVERY member had time to comment on it's proposal before it went to the FCC!

If the ARRL would have taken the time to poll each and every member we would not see 17 proposals sent to the FCC. Many of the authors of these 17 proposals are also members of the ARRL. Not all ARRL members are content..they were left out of the picture. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! With 17 proposals before the FCC it is safe to say that many of the ARRL members are discontented...BTW...Grassroot organizations start as (small groups).....Understood?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"The RAF is a grassroots organization...EVERY member had time to comment on it's proposal before it went to the FCC!"

LOL! Yeah, all 6 members commented. I bet that took all of 10 seconds...

N8VB

 

"The group, organized and led by Robin Gist, K4VU,
 was organized in response to the petition put
 forth by the American Radio Relay League, Inc.

 Hams (6) from all over the United States participated
 in the petition's development".

This is hysterical! Six "unhappy  camper" dudes appoint themselves to "Save Amateur Radio" from the ARRL and roll back history to circa 1950. HELLO!! Does anyone other than these six dudes really want to go back to those "BAD OLD DAYS"? Get a grip will you guys and start living in the 21st Century.      

 

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD9EMF @ Feb. 22 2004,180)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does it have to be the way the ARRL and its members say it has to be......there are a lot more amateur radio ops out here that have other opinions that dont go along with the ARRL...I myself dont care what the ARRL thinks...I like the recomendation that was given by the other organization[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No one is saying that it has to be the way the ARRL wants it to be.

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement. The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class. It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

All of these proposals are not likely to change what the FCC has pretty much aleady decided - to eliminate code testing as a requirement for a Ham license. The FCC does not look upon the ARS as a "club" with its "hazing rituals" like some Hams do (like the 6 members of the RAF "organization"). To the FCC the ARS is just another radio service. The only thing that you will see out of the FCC is a tendency to simplify the service, not complicate it further like the RAF wishes.

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,20:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2IQF @ Feb. 22 2004,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am talking about matter of facts! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Fine. What are the facts? I don't see anything other than your opinion?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
W7RJR:

You keep asking for proof of statements and for "facts". I will assume that you had some input to the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) proposal since you are one of its 6 members. I will also assume that you have read over your own proposal and are aware of the so called "statements" and "facts" that are presented as an arguement to support your ideas in the RAF proposal. Shall I prepare a list of the "statements" and "facts" that you guys put forth in your proposal document and ask you to provide *proof* that what you have said in that document is true? Most of what you guys state in that proposal is only your own biased opinion and not facts either.

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And why is that?

They chose a name that is confusing and much too close to the name of the "Foundation for Amateur Radio." I just hit google, if you type in "Amateur Radio Foundation" you get this:

"The Foundation for Amateur Radio (FAR) is composed of approximately 50 member organizations in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Foundation provides support to the amateur radio community for education, and technical and advisory guidance."

and

"Each year, FAR administers over 55 amateur radio-related scholarships in one of the largest such programs in the country. The application process is open to all licensed amateur radio operators from around the world."

and

"The Foundation also co-sponsors Fall-Fest, with the Columbia Amateur Radio Association, one of the largest amateur radio festivals (hamfest) on the East Coast. 2002 was the first year for co-sponsoring the hamfest and it was an great success."

and

"The Foundation also prints a magazine called "Auto Call." Published monthly it contains local club columns, advertising, ARRL and FCC highlights, VE test sessions as well as classified ads."

I guess I could call my business "Micr0soft" or "Hewlett Plackard" and that would be fine.

"Six Geezers and a mike" is mild compared to what some might call them.

Anyway, I meant to be humorous. I was licensed in 1963, I've held an FCC license for 40 years. Seems that I can call someone a geezer and they should not take offence.

de ah6gi/4 No-code or know-code, who cares. Do something for amateur radio. Get on the air, dag-nabbit![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
""Six Geezers and a mike" is mild compared to what some might call them."

True. I call them the Radio Amateur Frauds (RAF)...

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is polarizing and dividing ham radio is the ARRL. Others have submitted proposals to the FCC asking for the retention of code testing, yet they haven't been met with the anger and hatred that RAF has. The reason for that is when those other proposals were made, the ARRL hadn't yet spoken. Now that the ARRL has spoken, all the blind followers fall in line to fight any opposition. The League says jump, and they all ask "how high?" Wake up. The money-motivated political organization in Newington does not care what's best for ham radio, only what's best for their own coffers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You, as one of the 5 RAF cronies, are full of BS also.

You guys are trying to pass yourselves off as more than six like-minded people - like you are some kind of orginization who speaks for Ham radio operators.  Then you have the audacity to insult the ARRL and people who support it proposal.

The FCC has already signaled their intention to remove the morse code testing requirement.  The ARRL proposal would at least preserve it for Extra Class and would be a reasonable compromise.  I think the morse requirement should be dropped like a hot potato, but I will support the ARRL proposal before your backwards proposal.  Your proposal seeks to set Ham radio back 50 years.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just proved my point. No matter what the League says, you follow blindly with complete obedience. In this way, the League is like a cult.

I am accused of being backwards and seeking to set ham radio back 50 years because I don't want to see the standards watered down? It just shows where the League is at. The League desires to dumb down ham radio and sacrifice quality for quantity. Their motive is to increase membership. In other words, a sell-out for the sake of the money it will bring in in the form of increased membership. Why don't we ask what color something is for a test question? How about identifying shapes for another test question?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only point that has been proven is your obsession with the "evil empire" ARRL. Would you get over your ARRL envy already?  You are starting to sound pitiful.

I do not support the ARRL's petition either, but if I had to choose between yours and the ARRL's petition I would not chose yours.  I am not a member of the ARRL for various reasons of my own.  

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement.  The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class.  It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

Another question for you:

Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No. You're the one who's beginning to sound pitiful. This thread is littered with loads of your drivel. Over what? Because you violently disagree with RAF's efforts to maintain standards and integrity in ham radio? My ARRL "envy"? You've got to be sick! Who died and made you God? I don't know what your problem is, but don't try to squelch my freedom of speech. Don't tell me what to do. Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country. If I want to petition the FCC, I'll petition the FCC!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep asking for proof of statements and for "facts".  

Shall I prepare a list of the "statements" and "facts" that you guys put forth in your proposal document and ask you to provide *proof* that what you have said in that document is true?   Most of what you guys state in that proposal is only your own biased opinion and not facts either.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You speak of bias and opinion and yet an individual claims factually that the FCC only recognizes the ARRL as the legitimate voice of amateur radio. That goes well beyond bias and opinion, that is false. Prove it.

What makes you think the ARRL petition is free of bias and opinion?  

I signed the petition (not the proposal) because I felt in my *opinion* that it  was a better alternative. Perhaps there is an even better alternative out there that I might support as well, but it won't be the ARRL petition.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of complaining about how outraged you are that 6 ordinary hams got up off their butts and accomplished something, you might consider doing the same. Until you do, you have little to complain about.

73

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is polarizing and dividing ham radio is the ARRL. Others have submitted proposals to the FCC asking for the retention of code testing, yet they haven't been met with the anger and hatred that RAF has. The reason for that is when those other proposals were made, the ARRL hadn't yet spoken. Now that the ARRL has spoken, all the blind followers fall in line to fight any opposition. The League says jump, and they all ask "how high?" Wake up. The money-motivated political organization in Newington does not care what's best for ham radio, only what's best for their own coffers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You, as one of the 5 RAF cronies, are full of BS also.

You guys are trying to pass yourselves off as more than six like-minded people - like you are some kind of orginization who speaks for Ham radio operators. Then you have the audacity to insult the ARRL and people who support it proposal.

The FCC has already signaled their intention to remove the morse code testing requirement. The ARRL proposal would at least preserve it for Extra Class and would be a reasonable compromise. I think the morse requirement should be dropped like a hot potato, but I will support the ARRL proposal before your backwards proposal. Your proposal seeks to set Ham radio back 50 years.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just proved my point. No matter what the League says, you follow blindly with complete obedience. In this way, the League is like a cult.

I am accused of being backwards and seeking to set ham radio back 50 years because I don't want to see the standards watered down? It just shows where the League is at. The League desires to dumb down ham radio and sacrifice quality for quantity. Their motive is to increase membership. In other words, a sell-out for the sake of the money it will bring in in the form of increased membership. Why don't we ask what color something is for a test question? How about identifying shapes for another test question?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only point that has been proven is your obsession with the "evil empire" ARRL. Would you get over your ARRL envy already? You are starting to sound pitiful.

I do not support the ARRL's petition either, but if I had to choose between yours and the ARRL's petition I would not chose yours. I am not a member of the ARRL for various reasons of my own.

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement. The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class. It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

Another question for you:

Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No. You're the one who's beginning to sound pitiful. This thread is littered with loads of your drivel. Over what? Because you violently disagree with RAF's efforts to maintain standards and integrity in ham radio? My ARRL "envy"? You've got to be sick! Who died and made you God? I don't know what your problem is, but don't try to squelch my freedom of speech. Don't tell me what to do. Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country. If I want to petition the FCC, I'll petition the FCC! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are one to talk about "loads of drivel". This forum and eHam are full of your nonsense "ARRL envy" drivel as anyone can see. You are obsessed with the ARRL. You mention it in 90% of your posts.

What I disagree with is the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) trying to appear to be the voice of all Amateurs instead of the voice of 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950s.

And since you mention "freedom of speech" I will remind you that I can (and will) express my opinions against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere. You may call it it "drivel" but I call it POT KETTLE BLACK: In your own angry words "Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country." LOL!

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 23 2004,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep asking for proof of statements and for "facts".

Shall I prepare a list of the "statements" and "facts" that you guys put forth in your proposal document and ask you to provide *proof* that what you have said in that document is true? Most of what you guys state in that proposal is only your own biased opinion and not facts either.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You speak of bias and opinion and yet an individual claims factually that the FCC only recognizes the ARRL as the legitimate voice of amateur radio. That goes well beyond bias and opinion, that is false. Prove it.

What makes you think the ARRL petition is free of bias and opinion?

I signed the petition (not the proposal) because I felt in my *opinion* that it was a better alternative. Perhaps there is an even better alternative out there that I might support as well, but it won't be the ARRL petition.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of complaining about how outraged you are that 6 ordinary hams got up off their butts and accomplished something, you might consider doing the same. Until you do, you have little to complain about.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Obviously you guys (Radio Amateur Frauds) are obsessed with the ARRL. You mention it in 90% of your posts no matter what the original subject was.

Where have I said that the ARRL speaks for all Hams? Where did I say that the ARRL petition is free of bias and opinion?

I do not belong to the ARRL for my own reasons. I do not entirely agree with the ARRL's petition either. I would support the ARRL's petition over the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition if it came down to only two choices.

I intend to "accomplish" something too. I will continue to voice my *opinion* against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere including if or when the FCC puts the petition up for comment. There are enough petitions to the FCC concerning ARS license restructuring. I will not waste their time like the RAF have with another bogus petition. The FCC has made it clear that they intend to simplify the ARS not make it more complicated like the RAF proposal want to do.

You say that you signed the RAF petition. Did you have any input into what was written in the proposal document... or did you just follow along like a lemming?

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is polarizing and dividing ham radio is the ARRL. Others have submitted proposals to the FCC asking for the retention of code testing, yet they haven't been met with the anger and hatred that RAF has. The reason for that is when those other proposals were made, the ARRL hadn't yet spoken. Now that the ARRL has spoken, all the blind followers fall in line to fight any opposition. The League says jump, and they all ask "how high?" Wake up. The money-motivated political organization in Newington does not care what's best for ham radio, only what's best for their own coffers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You, as one of the 5 RAF cronies, are full of BS also.

You guys are trying to pass yourselves off as more than six like-minded people - like you are some kind of orginization who speaks for Ham radio operators.  Then you have the audacity to insult the ARRL and people who support it proposal.

The FCC has already signaled their intention to remove the morse code testing requirement.  The ARRL proposal would at least preserve it for Extra Class and would be a reasonable compromise.  I think the morse requirement should be dropped like a hot potato, but I will support the ARRL proposal before your backwards proposal.  Your proposal seeks to set Ham radio back 50 years.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just proved my point. No matter what the League says, you follow blindly with complete obedience. In this way, the League is like a cult.

I am accused of being backwards and seeking to set ham radio back 50 years because I don't want to see the standards watered down? It just shows where the League is at. The League desires to dumb down ham radio and sacrifice quality for quantity. Their motive is to increase membership. In other words, a sell-out for the sake of the money it will bring in in the form of increased membership. Why don't we ask what color something is for a test question? How about identifying shapes for another test question?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only point that has been proven is your obsession with the "evil empire" ARRL. Would you get over your ARRL envy already?  You are starting to sound pitiful.

I do not support the ARRL's petition either, but if I had to choose between yours and the ARRL's petition I would not chose yours.  I am not a member of the ARRL for various reasons of my own.  

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement.  The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class.  It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

Another question for you:

Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No. You're the one who's beginning to sound pitiful. This thread is littered with loads of your drivel. Over what? Because you violently disagree with RAF's efforts to maintain standards and integrity in ham radio? My ARRL "envy"? You've got to be sick! Who died and made you God? I don't know what your problem is, but don't try to squelch my freedom of speech. Don't tell me what to do. Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country. If I want to petition the FCC, I'll petition the FCC! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are one to talk about "loads of drivel".  This forum and eHam are full of your nonsense "ARRL envy" drivel as anyone can see.  You are obsessed with the ARRL.  You mention it in 90% of your posts.

What I disagree with is the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) trying to appear to be the voice of all Amateurs instead of the voice of 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950s.

And since you mention "freedom of speech" I will remind you that I can (and will) express my opinions against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere.  You may call it it "drivel" but I call it POT KETTLE BLACK: In your own angry words "Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country."  LOL!

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
RAF never claimed to represent all amateurs. You represent no one. All you want to do is undermine amateur radio. You're nothing but an anoying pest. Don't bother me with your BS. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You make no sense. You're just a troll looking for attention. Don't expect a response from me, dude.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?


What I disagree with is the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) trying to appear to be the voice of all Amateurs instead of the voice of 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950s.

And since you mention "freedom of speech" I will remind you that I can (and will) express my opinions against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is it that you want from our group to satisfy you that we are only a group of 6 ordinary hams, some kind of certificate? Would you like us to take a lie detector test?

What is it that concerns you so much about the name of the group or the way it was signed? Are you suggesting or implying that we have misrepresented something or that we have done something fraudulently?
If so, please state specifically what it is. Very specifically please, so that all can read it.

I would like to remind you that as you have the freedom to speak here we are also exercising our RIGHT to submit a petition to the FCC. You will NEVER deny me the right to my freedoms under the Constitution. Some of us have fought and died to protect these rights. So as you will continue to speak your mind here, I will continue to petition the FCC with LOTS of opinion and BIAS. My opinion is that our proposal is better and I am biased to upholding the traditions, value and honor that used to be part of amateur radio.

 

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,019)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 22 2004,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is polarizing and dividing ham radio is the ARRL. Others have submitted proposals to the FCC asking for the retention of code testing, yet they haven't been met with the anger and hatred that RAF has. The reason for that is when those other proposals were made, the ARRL hadn't yet spoken. Now that the ARRL has spoken, all the blind followers fall in line to fight any opposition. The League says jump, and they all ask "how high?" Wake up. The money-motivated political organization in Newington does not care what's best for ham radio, only what's best for their own coffers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You, as one of the 5 RAF cronies, are full of BS also.

You guys are trying to pass yourselves off as more than six like-minded people - like you are some kind of orginization who speaks for Ham radio operators. Then you have the audacity to insult the ARRL and people who support it proposal.

The FCC has already signaled their intention to remove the morse code testing requirement. The ARRL proposal would at least preserve it for Extra Class and would be a reasonable compromise. I think the morse requirement should be dropped like a hot potato, but I will support the ARRL proposal before your backwards proposal. Your proposal seeks to set Ham radio back 50 years.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just proved my point. No matter what the League says, you follow blindly with complete obedience. In this way, the League is like a cult.

I am accused of being backwards and seeking to set ham radio back 50 years because I don't want to see the standards watered down? It just shows where the League is at. The League desires to dumb down ham radio and sacrifice quality for quantity. Their motive is to increase membership. In other words, a sell-out for the sake of the money it will bring in in the form of increased membership. Why don't we ask what color something is for a test question? How about identifying shapes for another test question?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only point that has been proven is your obsession with the "evil empire" ARRL. Would you get over your ARRL envy already? You are starting to sound pitiful.

I do not support the ARRL's petition either, but if I had to choose between yours and the ARRL's petition I would not chose yours. I am not a member of the ARRL for various reasons of my own.

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement. The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class. It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

Another question for you:

Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No. You're the one who's beginning to sound pitiful. This thread is littered with loads of your drivel. Over what? Because you violently disagree with RAF's efforts to maintain standards and integrity in ham radio? My ARRL "envy"? You've got to be sick! Who died and made you God? I don't know what your problem is, but don't try to squelch my freedom of speech. Don't tell me what to do. Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country. If I want to petition the FCC, I'll petition the FCC! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are one to talk about "loads of drivel". This forum and eHam are full of your nonsense "ARRL envy" drivel as anyone can see. You are obsessed with the ARRL. You mention it in 90% of your posts.

What I disagree with is the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) trying to appear to be the voice of all Amateurs instead of the voice of 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950s.

And since you mention "freedom of speech" I will remind you that I can (and will) express my opinions against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere. You may call it it "drivel" but I call it POT KETTLE BLACK: In your own angry words "Don't attempt to tell me what I can say and what I can't say! I live in a free country." LOL!

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
RAF never claimed to represent all amateurs. You represent no one. All you want to do is undermine amateur radio. You're nothing but an anoying pest. Don't bother me with your BS. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You make no sense. You're just a troll looking for attention. Don't expect a response from me, dude.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The very name Radio Amateur Foundation implies that you want to appear to be more than you really are - 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950's.

I want to see the ARS progress from being a "club" with "hazing rituals" like you guys want to being something that is more in line with the 21st century. The RAF wants the ARS to stay stuck in the past - YOU are trying to undermine the Amateur Radio Service if anyone is.

You can go ahead and dismiss me as a troll if it makes you feel better. What did you think was going to happen when you made your RAF proposal - that everyone was going to just agree with you? If the RAF is willing to make such a proposal then you guys should also be willing to take the heat for your proposal. Obviously you cannot. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE WHINING AND COMPLAINING THAT YOU DO ABOUT THE ARRL AND ITS PROPOSAL. It is ok for you to critisize the ARRL but not ok for me to critisize the RAF? Hmmm... Sorry to have s**t in your sandbox. Now take your toys and go home.

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm...   Sorry to have s**t in your sandbox. Now take your toys and go home.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I usually refrain from making such comments but I have to agree with Mark that you are just a troll. Only a troll would respond in such a manner. Go back under your bridge.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 23 2004,01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?


What I disagree with is the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) trying to appear to be the voice of all Amateurs instead of the voice of 6 people who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950s.

And since you mention "freedom of speech" I will remind you that I can (and will) express my opinions against the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) petition here and elsewhere. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is it that you want from our group to satisfy you that we are only a group of 6 ordinary hams, some kind of certificate? Would you like us to take a lie detector test?

What is it that concerns you so much about the name of the group or the way it was signed? Are you suggesting or implying that we have misrepresented something or that we have done something fraudulently?
If so, please state specifically what it is. Very specifically please, so that all can read it.

I would like to remind you that as you have the freedom to speak here we are also exercising our RIGHT to submit a petition to the FCC. You will NEVER deny me the right to my freedoms under the Constitution. Some of us have fought and died to protect these rights. So as you will continue to speak your mind here, I will continue to petition the FCC with LOTS of opinion and BIAS. My opinion is that our proposal is better and I am biased to upholding the traditions, value and honor that used to be part of amateur radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Save your Constitutional speech for someone else. I am criticizing the RAF (Radio Amateur Frauds) for trying to appear to be more than 6 Hams with special interests. Why do 6 Hams need a director? Why list six of your six members on the "Committee for Amateur Service Restructuring"? I will tell you why: because you 6 Hams are trying to appear to be more than what you are. No where in that document do you state that your RAF organization consists *entirely* of 6 members. You are trying to legitimize your RAF in the eyes of the FCC by using titles such as "Director" and "Committee for Amateur Service Restructuring". Check out AE6IP's proposal (http://www.ae6ip.com/FCCPetition.doc). He states that he is petitioning as himself and not a bogus Ham Radio Organization. The six of you could have done the same instead of tring to appear to be something you are not.

I will ask you what I asked ag4rq:

If the RAF is willing to make such a proposal then you guys should also be willing to take the heat for your proposal. Obviously you cannot. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE WHINING AND COMPLAINING THAT YOU DO ABOUT THE ARRL AND ITS PROPOSAL. It is ok for you to criticize the ARRL but not ok for me to criticize the RAF?

The ARS has no honor when it tries to make Ham Radio into a "club" with "hazing rituals". Obviously you want to keep it that way. There is no honor in that...

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 23 2004,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm... Sorry to have s**t in your sandbox. Now take your toys and go home.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I usually refrain from making such comments but I have to agree with Mark that you are just a troll. Only a troll would respond in such a manner. Go back under your bridge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It is clear that you guys (Radio Amateur Frauds) cannot take the same criticism that you dish out to the ARRL or its members. It is easier for you to dimiss me as a troll than take a good look at yourselves. How about one of you guys actually answering some of the questions I have asked of you instead of changing the subject each time?

N8VB