What do you want in an Amateur Organization?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by AE6JM, Nov 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You don't have to move up the ranks. Any member with a minimum membership time (year or two, I forget exactly) may run for a board position.

    You may be 100% against the policies of the current board, but that is irrelevant as far as the elections are concerned because the elections are by the members. Unless, of course, it happens that the majority of voting members are in agreement with the current board, then I guess you won't get elected.

    The board has no say in the elections other than that allowed by charter to determine that you're eligible to run. You're politics have no bearing or weight.

    All it takes is the desire to run, be a member in good standing, and then running! One must be willing to make the committment to be an active board member, and I suspect this is the primary reason so few seek one of the positions.

    Mike
     
  2. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Mark, Mr. Hollingsworth answered Steve's question regarding both rules. The source of the third party does not matter.
     
  3. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Mark,

    Unless you can come up with an Artificial Intelligence with the moral worldview of a human I don't think you are going to come up with a way of reviewing messages other than by reviewing them manually.

    With responsibility comes accountability. You can't satisfy accountability by saying "I tried using something I knew would fail". That would be like saying "I tried to meet rules against splattering by using an amplifier I knew wouldn't meet the rules". That's just not a legitimate attempt to abide by the rules.

    You *can* demonstrate accountability by saying "I used something I thought was 100% but it failed". That is not, however, what Mike is advocating. He is advocating the use of something *KNOWN* not to be 100%. It essence, it is just plain hoping you won't get caught or, in more esoteric terms, the old "the ends justifies the means" argument.

    As I posted to Mike, it is a form of moral relativism. It is a way to rationalize using what is *easy* instead of showing some integrity and complying with what is right.

    tim ab0wr

    tim ab0wr
     
  4. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    That's right Tim, I have zero evidence of it ever happening. I didn't say or even imply that I have.

    Do I take this as evidence that humans are infallible and that it has never happened?

    Did I take the fact that you, a lone operator, in all of your years in ham radio have never seen this happen, to be evidence that it never has?

    No.

    People make mistakes. Nothing is 100%.

    You're trying to tell me that people are infallible.

    Yet again you misquote me. I said that neither automatic systems nor people are 100%. I never said that because one is so, then so is the other.

    What I know is that people make mistakes. Argue against that all that you want.

    Mike
     
  5. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    That is correct when determining if a message is third-party. When determining if a message can be re-transmitted, then you do have to look at its origin. Here is the question again:
    I don't think Riley answered the question that you think was asked. Riley was focused on whether a message was third-party, not on whether the message should be re-transmitted.

    73,
    Mark N5RFX
     
  6. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Jeez Tim, I NEVER said that a control operator may think he's not responsible.

    Are you reading? Where do you come up with this stuff. I explicitly stated at least half a dozen times that ultimately the control operator responsible for the automatically controlled station is responsible for its operation.

    Accepting responsibility does NOT mean that he has to examine every message. It means that if something that gets transmitted that shouldn't have been, he is responsible for that violation.

    Drop it with the out of context "who cares" Tim. It's getting old and has no bearing out of context, and certainly not when just applied to wherever you want it.

    Mr. Hollingsworth, when asked about the difference between the two rules, the only difference being a reference to the origination of the third party traffic, replied that the source does not matter.
     
  7. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    The more I think about this the better the boycott idea gets.

    Contrary to what Mike is saying, we do NOT need a national organization. What has the ARRL accomplished in the past decade as a national organization?

    It didn't keep us from losing part of 220mhz. It hasn't even slowed BPL let alone stopped it. It has been totally ineffective in lobbying against antenna restrictions. It has sent petitions to the FCC that have been roundly rejected: 1)giving voluntary bandplans regulatory force, 2)removing power restrictions on spread spectrum, 3)bandwidth regulation. They have been pushing Winlink, the most despised operation on the ham bands. They are turning ham radio into a common carrier in order to gain outside funding.

    We don't *need* any of this. We would be better off without it.

    I can't think of a better significant emotional event than one a boycott would give.

    How do we go about advertising such a thing?

    tim ab0wr
     
  8. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I was using the term business, you replied that business was not mentioned in the regs, went on about pecuniary interest. I switched to pecuniary interest, quoting you, and you brought "business" back into the posts. You're something else. [​IMG]

    Reasonable for who? How about if I decide what is reasonable for me, you decide what is reasonable for you, and we let the FCC decide what is reasonable for either of us?

    100? According to you there are currently 11,000 WinLink users. Guess I just missed 40 meters being consumed by Pactor III transmissions day and night.

    Yes, and all of 2 or 3 other ops have come on here to support you Tim.

    I suppose most others are just being amused by either or both of us. [​IMG]
     
  9. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    If he's not responsible for failures of a system that he knows is not 100% then he is not being held resposible.

    That *IS* what you are saying. See your quote below.

    You have a funny idea of responsibility. If it is your responsibility is to see inappropriate content doesn't get out on the air then how do you describe someone who uses a system they know is not 100% in preventing that inappropriate content from being transmitted?

    I call it being irresponsible. You call it "so what"?

    Would you rescind the ham license of someone who uses a system they know is not 100% effective in stopping inappropriate content if some inappropriate content gets through?

    Don't ignore the question. Don't equivocate. Just answer yes or no.

    tim ab0wr
     
  10. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    As Mark has pointed out, you are doing your "mind reading" act again. Mr. Hollingsworth didn't say any such thing.

    tim ab0wr
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page