I was just informed of the recent response to my earlier post. Good thing I
went on-line to see it (I normally only get the digest), although the nature
of that reply is sad.
Since a personal, ah, response like that does not belong on the list but
should be handled direct, let me reply generically since there is some
mis-interpretation of my motive here:
I'm not saying that the quote is neccesarily wrong or inaccurate. Yeah, it
looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but that doesn't neccesarily mean
it's a duck (it could be a silly rabbit in disguise). For that reason, and
considering the responses on it to date, I went looking for it -- and
couldn't find it.
Could I have missed it? Sure. That's one of the reasons I asked. But the
thing is, if you look at the news items on the ARRL Web Site, you'll notice
that most or all of the news items there end up in the weekly ARRL Letter in
some form or another. And you'd think something like this would qualify as
a news item, wouldn't it?
I've also noticed only the original post from K4JRB actually quotes from
this alleged meeting. Everyone else is replying to it. This is NOT, again,
to say that Dave is wrong -- far from it. But just because a lot of replies
included the original post is hardly the same thing as a bunch of us saying
"yeah, I read that too!"
My point originally was simply to FIND the original comments that Dave was
quoting from IN CONTEXT. Then evaluate the information and make up my own
mind. Otherwise we're dealing with information that is no more reliable
than another internet or urban myth.
So am I now to understand that if I don't agree with the vocal minority I'm
presumed to be against them? That's sad.
The key four questions were never answered: Who said it, who heard it, what
exactly was said, and when. Instead, I got slammed for raising them. That
alone says quite a lot, but let it rest. Suffice to say that if the biggest
argument that was made was criticizing my signature line... really.
Although this suddenly makes another one more relevant for the moment.
Does anyone know the facts, or are we just reacting to a tall tale?
73, ron wn3vaw
"What's wrong with being an angry prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of our
time?" -- Howard Beale
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <wn3vaw@fyi.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW or SSB FCC says neither
I don't know guys, but something of this smells like a red herring that's
been left in the back seat of someone's car for a few days with the windows
up and the temperatures averaging the upper 90's (Farenheit, that is)
I just did a search through some of the news archives. I wanted to see
exactly what Chairman Powell was quoted as saying and in what context.
Guess what? If this happened recently (and I checked as far back as March),
no one seems to have reported it as a news item anywhere.
And isn't it curious that the original post states that this is a quote from
the "new FCC Chairman"? He's been FCC Chairman for quite some time now,
over a year I believe -- hardly new. And he's not mentioned by name.
Neither is the group of amateurs.
So before we jump off the handle and run around screaming at how unfair this
all is, or how it's inevitable, or how this is another ARRL plot to sell
more radios for the manufacturer's by giving us a worthless 5 MHz
allocation, or something else equally or moreso ridiculous, let's find out a
few things:
(a) Exactly who said this?
(b) Exactly when was it said?
(c) Exactly what was said?
(d) Exactly who was it said to?
If we don't know that, not only is this all wild speculation, but it has the
legitimacy of an anonymous email telling you to delete a file off your hard
drive calle AOL.EXE because it's an obvious virus that will destroy your
brain cells. Or something like that.
73, ron wn3vaw
"And they give you cash,
which is just as good as money!"
Yogi Berra, AFLAC Commercial, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <k2av@contesting.com>
To: "David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>,
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW or SSB FCC says neither.
They can be replaced. When that particular chairman is gone, we will
still be here, sending code. Sounds like he doesn't have enough work
to do.
It's kinda like them telling an old car collector to get his '60
Thunderbird off the road.
PSK31 is growing leaps and bounds, all by itself, no help needed from
the FCC, and CW will remain an art form for a long time.
Voice, anything narrower than SSB around? WHAT new voice mode?
73, Guy
----- Original Message -----
From: "David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW or SSB FCC says neither.
> The new FCC Chairman told a group of hams that its time for amateurs
to move
> to the new modes
> and leave what he considers are obsolete modes. He said (and ARRL
agrees)
> that a mode such as PSK31 is superior to CW in weak signal
environments.
> Amateurs are working each other with QRP where signals are below the
noise
> threshold. Listen to the speaker and there is nothing!
>
> The FCC Chairman also stated that CW is no longer in use in DOD
applications
> and is rapidly disappearing in Commercial Marine communications.
>
> So are we getting in disfavor with the FCC by sticking to CW or SSB?
>
> 73 Dave K4JRB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|