November 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: Letter to Red Cross
by Bill Edgar 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Interesting. I still haven't seen that ODV message. Last ODV message I've seen is number 16161 from Bruce at 12:16PM today. Are we having problems with the reflector again? From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:49 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Letter to Red Cross Joel, Excellent letter. I would like to restate one suggestion for any new SOU. This is that it should contain a statement that RC encourages the pubic information people involved in disaster/emergency operations to acknowledge the assistance of Amateur Radio operators/clubs in news releases and statements. This suggestion has nothing to do with an ego trip. Instead, it stems from the belief that in addition to good PR's positive effect on our image, recognition given by RC (or any served agency will stimulate interest in the service (and bring new members). As you commented concerning the mutual benefit of the ARRL-RC association, RC publicity of our assistance to them would be mutually beneficial. More new hams = new folks in the pool of potential operators to help the RC. Taken to the extreme, no new hams = no help. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Letter to Red Cross Greetings, In accordance with the instruction of the Executive Committee as recommended by the Ad-hoc Background Investigation Committee, the attached letter has been sent to the American Red Cross concerning our now expired SOU. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: Letter to Red Cross
by K8JE 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Joel, Excellent letter. I would like to restate one suggestion for any new SOU. This is that it should contain a statement that RC encourages the pubic information people involved in disaster/emergency operations to acknowledge the assistance of Amateur Radio operators/clubs in news releases and statements. This suggestion has nothing to do with an ego trip. Instead, it stems from the belief that in addition to good PR's positive effect on our image, recognition given by RC (or any served agency will stimulate interest in the service (and bring new members). As you commented concerning the mutual benefit of the ARRL-RC association, RC publicity of our assistance to them would be mutually beneficial. More new hams = new folks in the pool of potential operators to help the RC. Taken to the extreme, no new hams = no help. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Letter to Red Cross Greetings, In accordance with the instruction of the Executive Committee as recommended by the Ad-hoc Background Investigation Committee, the attached letter has been sent to the American Red Cross concerning our now expired SOU. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial
by K8JE 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Joel, As I recall, someone mentioned a visit to Dick Ross. I was reacting to this thought in terms in which any irregular visit to him at this time might be construed. I have no problem whatsoever with Dick and Dave chatting from time to time, but at this particular moment, I wouldn't reach out to initiate a Coke(r) date. In that I'm back online on this topic, I fully support Jay's thoughts. I, nor do I believe Jay, would not get into a "h"issing contest, but I believe it is time that we engage in carefully-crafted explanations of the relevant issues. I continue to believe we ought to use all readily-available venues to distribute these discussions. I realize the effort I recommend will draw rebuttals, but they also would educate other folks to the truth. This would be a net win. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:39 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial Jim, No one is, or has suggested, "running" to Dick Ross. That ain't happening. For many years, dating back before you were on the board, Ross would, on occasion every couple of years, come to HQ or Dave would have a reason to visit CQ and they would chat about various things in Amateur Radio in general. That is a good thing. If that opportunity pops up in the near future I'm sure Dave will, as usual, take advantage of the opportunity to discuss Amateur Radio life in general, but he sure isn't digging his Hushpuppies out of the closet and waxing them up for a "run" over to Hicksville, NY. Joel -----Original Message----- From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial I think there is a fine line between freedom of the press, and setting the record straight. "Running" to Dick Ross could easily be construed as attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. On the other hand, a well-written, hard-hitting, fact-filled, documented letter to the editor and/or discussion in ARRL publications is an example of supporting this freedom. Having said the above, I remain concerned that we are not doing everything we can feasibly do to fix the public image of ARRL that exists in many members as well as nonmembers minds. This is an era of unprecedented access to instantaneous communication regardless of the legitimacy of the communication. I believe we have neither recognized the degree to which anti-ARRL commu8nication by League bashers is being accepted by all-too-many hams, nor have we developed modern, relevant means for nullifying the effects of these attacks. It isn't our grandparent's era of communication and relative goodwill. The publicity axiom of "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name correctly" holds true any longer regarding organizations that rely on public support to survive. The axiom, "The louder and longer one proclaims an untruth, the greater the number of people who come to accept it as fact" certainly is at least as true as ever. FWIW, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16147] RE: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial Tom is correct that there was no separate Web story after the conference. There was an extensive report in the September 21 ARRL Letter, however. There is a full-page report on the Region 2 conference, including the URL of the Region 2 band plan, on page 74 of December QST. In both cases the report included the fact that the Region 2 plan is modeled on the Region 1 plan, something that Rich neglects to mention either in the editorial or in the brief item, credited to Radio Amateurs of Canada, on page 4. (The RAC item also included the Region 1 reference.) Rich's basic argument is that the ARRL's decisionmaking processes are not as open and transparent as they could be or should be. In this instance he happens to have seized on something which in fact isn't an example of that at all. I have not talked to Dick Ross about either editorial. It's been a while since we have gotten together informally, which we have done in the past from time to time. We don't often actively engage the other independent amateur radio media. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial At 03:27 PM 11/26/2007, Joel wrote: >QSL Brian. >Dave and I agree that the response should be worded such that Rich will come to his own realization that he really goofed on a couple of points. Wording it differently would serve no purpose but to encourage Rich to write yet another bad editorial, which ARRL and amateur radio doesn't need. I think we need to reply differently than we did last time (just six months ago). Have we had any discussions with Rich's boss? It looks like we don't advertise in CQ, so there's none to pull. Still, I'm feeling like cooperation with CQ should chill for a while. Jay Bellows had some good suggestions last time - I was hoping to see CQ acknowledge they had their facts wrong, but unless I missed it, nothing was ever reported. I can't imagine why we still have someone who can't follow the basics of "getting the facts straight" (or even ask us for the facts) on our PR Committee. It gives him more credibility than it gives us. Further, I think we need to take a different approach to this kind of story. This one seems to have started on one person's web site, then spread through others, with flames fanned by fringe groups who seem to need a cause of their own PR, and finally found a home in a "respected" publication. We generally do not engage the writers at any stage of the discussion, except for those that write to us individually. Those responses don't generally get shared with everyone who read the original flames. Maybe we need a "rumor control" (or "setting the record straight") section of the ARRL web site. I see from yesterday's In-News that "A rapidly spreading rumor of Riley's being forced to retire after his decision NOT to do so was silenced." Perhaps rumor control happens more than I realize - so why don't we talk about it/them publicly? Do we regularly contact other ham radio publications like CQ and WorldRadio (are there really any others of significance?) and offer to answer questions, to promote specific stories of our own, etc? That might make for opportunities for questions to be answered before damage is done. As I noted in an email exchange with Joel in mid-October, the only story on our web site about the Region 2 Conference in Brazil was on September 11th as the conference opened. I still can't find one that reported on the activities that took place - including any report on the bandplan that seems to have created all of the aggravation. Nothing found in Nov or Dec QST so maybe it'll be in January? I really hate to see all of our hard work on international issues tarnished by the bad reporting by W2VU and CQ, and our lack of reporting. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

Letter to Red Cross
by Joel Harrison 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Greetings, In accordance with the instruction of the Executive Committee as recommended by the Ad-hoc Background Investigation Committee, the attached letter has been sent to the American Red Cross concerning our now expired SOU. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:16161] Fall CQ VHF
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

While we're dis~cussing CQ, let me brag a little. In the Fall issue of CQ VHF, K0NR's FM column talks about the "Colorado 14er Radio Event" held in mid-August, where hams scale about a dozen of Colorado's fifty two 14000' mountains with HTs. Our club put on K4S that weekend from Mt. Sunflower at a dizzying 4039' which is the highest point in KS (and all of 2/3 mile from Colorado...) (& flat as many a billiard table). Bob's article includes a sidebar about our operation. AND the cover photo is a sunrise shot at our 'summit camp'. 73 Bruce K0BJ -- BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS ------------------------------------------------------ NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible. Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 45100735) is spam: Spam: http://spam.st-tel.net/canit/b.php?i=45100735&m=8bfed19e78a2&c=s Not spam: http://spam.st-tel.net/canit/b.php?i=45100735&m=8bfed19e78a2&c=n Forget vote: http://spam.st-tel.net/canit/b.php?i=45100735&m=8bfed19e78a2&c=f ------------------------------------------------------ END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial
by Joel Harrison 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Jay, I can accept that Dick and I just disagree with you on this matter. We are responding to Rich. I told you we were and nothing has changed. Dave and I are in rev 1 of the draft. This situation is different from the one in June in that while his editorial was intentionally worded negatively toward ARRL it really didn't contain any false statements other than he played up the Red Cross matter a little too much. His opinion and conclusions were all wrong, but that was his shortcoming, not the information he based it on. This editorial is different in that it contains a blatantly false conclusion based on false information and that is deserving of a correction and when that happens in the future I can assure you we will continue to set the record straight! It is extremely important, though, that we keep matters like this in the proper perspective. That was the basis for Dick's comments and I still agree. I agree distribution media is considerably different from 30 years ago, but the same principles still apply. Have we forgotten Wayne Green? Do some of you even know who he is (was)? 73 Magazine was a good magazine but its editorial was riddled each month by ranting from Wayne that gutted ARRL on everything imaginable. Wayne occasionally made some valid points, but 98% of the time it was based on nothing more than his flawed opinion concluded from rumors and hearsay. We could have dedicated a full time staff position to responding to Wayne each month, or utilized our existing media of the time to address his editorial. What would that have gained us? Nothing. What would it have gained Wayne Green? Recognition that he was THE person that knew all of the inner details of the 800 pound gorilla in Newington and would save us from their terrible attempts to destroy amateur radio. We remained focused on our mission then, we kept the general good of amateur radio at heart and moved forward. We are still here, Wayne Green and 73 aren't. Now, with that said can we do a better job of getting "our message out"? Sure. I've made that clear on numerous occasions but we have to first determine what that means. Right now at least one on the board believes we should sit a person in the amateur radio chat rooms to debate the distracters. Stop and think about the requirements in time and personality that would take for the benefit we would obtain from it. Sure, Rich is rattling his saber, but go back and look at the statistics I presented to you about CQ magazine and the number of subscribers they really have and you may get a sense of the real reason for saber rattling. Amateur Radio has gone through a boom time so far this year. We have taken the high road and have moved our organization and Amateur Radio to the next level and it has benefited us by now being a stronger organization. That hasn't happen at CQ and they know it. I'm not against CQ. Let me repeat that. I'm not against CQ. They provide a good service to Amateur Radio and promote some very good operating events to encourage people to get on the air. And they want the best for Amateur Radio. We need that. I have received a total of 18 emails regarding the Region 2 band plan issue. 12 of those were not ARRL members and hadn't been for five to ten years, one not since 1989 and one had never been a member. Of those 18, after I explained the matter all but 4 responded with "Oh, OK....tnx for the factual clarification". The other four just wanted to carry on a debate and refused to accept the facts, and they never will. If we had been able to resolve this issue to their satisfaction would they have become League supporters and members? Nope. Some of these guys sit in the chat rooms just waiting for a chance to take a swing at us. How do I know that? Because I've taken the time to look through some of these chat rooms on occasion and it is the same old group of about a dozen that just lie there and wait for a topic to pop up so they can start an anti-ARRL thread and they do it time after time after time. Let's be real.....we ain't gonna change those guys but I do agree, let me restate that...I do agree we should be diligent in assuring they don't win a few more over to the "dark side" even if they offer cookies! So, with that small number of complaints would we have gained anything by posting a big "here's our side of the story" on the web site? Reasonable people can disagree on conclusions, but mine is that we would have not and addressing the matter individually with these 18 was a better route and I'm convinced such a web post would not have stopped Rich's editorial at all. I believe he searches the internet chat rooms for smoke and then tries to start a fire. So, let's again keep this in perspective. When January 1 arrives and the new Region 2 Band Plan goes into effect, and the "sky is falling because of ARRL" radio amateurs in the U.S. realize it hasn't changed their operating style one bit, where is the issue? When they realize that when we said a band plan is a living thing that should continually change to recognize current operating neighborhoods and interests and we continue to accept input on these matters, where is the issue? Again, I agree we can always do a better job getting our message out. But honestly, there is no way in the world we could have predicted this very small group would have looked at one individual item from the Region 2 conference and come to the completely false conclusion that they did. I'll confess do you that I didn't nor could I, and I'll be as bold to say none of you could have. One thing our great communications capabilities do today is allow anyone with a half-baked conclusion or position to spam the world and I guarantee you it will get at least a dozen people to jump on your bandwagon, regardless of how ridiculous it is. Trying to be proactive to head this off is quite difficult. We are not a secret society, yes some people view us that way but if you do some historical research you will quickly learn that is nothing new whatsoever and has been out there for years. Once again, and I want to make this perfectly clear (no, not the Nixon way!) that I agree we should work to improve the way we communicate what we're doing and I'm very open to discussing it with each of you and even at the board meeting if we need to. I do, however, offer the following suggestions for the process: 1.Keep the complaints in perspective. Don't start a fire where there isn't smoke 2.Stay focused on our mission to promote and defend the Amateur Radio Service and on-the-air activity. 3. Make sure what we do serves the general good of amateur radio And remember, what our members really want is to be able to walk into their shack whenever they have time, turn on their radio and operate without restrictions or worries from outside governments or entities. As long as we keep that in mind and make that happen and continue to enhance that operating experience, we'll continue to move forward. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Joel: I couldn't disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick Norton last time. Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What was the result--the December CQ "Here We Go Again" editorial? Once again Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board as the "Secret Society." I haven't said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting a response this week; however Dave's most recent ODV suggests no response is in the offing. As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the facts or just "fanning the flames." We did nothing so W2VU felt free to play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry how not responding to the "Swift Boat" ads worked from him in 2004. With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly a substitute. If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. 73, Jay, -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16157] Re:RE: December CQ editorial
by John Bellows 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Dave: I would submit the June CQ editorial was selectively factual. For that reason a fair understanding of the Board's action required that we provide what Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story." A decision was made not to fill in the blanks. A fair assumption is that our inaction "emboldened" Mr. Moseson to take a second jab with the December CQ editorial. I'm pleased to see we aren't following the same course this time. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16157] Re:RE: December CQ editorial I didn't intend to leave the impression that no response to the CQ editorial would be forthcoming. It's being worked on. The June CQ editorial came to unflattering conclusions but was factually based, other than that Rich made more of the Red Cross issue than it deserved. The December editorial is not factually based and merits rebuttal. Khrystyne is out today so I can't check with her right away, and therefore can't say for certain why the story of the conclusion of the conference was in the ARRL Letter and QST but not in the Web news crawl. The morning after the conference, while still in Brasilia, I sent her the news release issued at the end of the conference along with a couple of additions/corrections and several photos that Joel and I had taken to dress up the story. When I got back to the office on Monday I was consumed by the Southwestern Division disqualification and didn't notice that the story didn't make the Web. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Joel: I couldn't disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick Norton last time. Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What was the result--the December CQ "Here We Go Again" editorial? Once again Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board as the "Secret Society." I haven't said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting a response this week; however Dave's most recent ODV suggests no response is in the offing. As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the facts or just "fanning the flames." We did nothing so W2VU felt free to play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry how not responding to the "Swift Boat" ads worked for him in 2004. With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly a substitute. If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:16158] Re: December CQ editorial
by Richard J. Norton 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Implicit in the efficacy of Jay's recommendation is the assumption that responding would either eliminate or soften future editorials or criticisms. My view is obviously that it would not be likely. My personal interchanges with Rich Moseman have been generally positive, but never related to ARRL issues at all. Others have had less positive encounters with him. Consequently, I am not certain what would result. Responding directly opens up the possibility of anointing CQ as Amateur Radio's ombudsman toward the "Secret Society." If any proponents of responding to inaccurate or misleading information want an exercise, please look at www.ae6jm.com . Tell me if I should respond, let AE6JM keep or revoke his Assistant Director status, and or approve or reject the application for the 2009 ARRL Southwestern Division Convention for which his local council of radio clubs elected AE6JM chairman. Airplane for the USA leaves in about 3 hours. Home tonight. 73, Dick/HR2 On Nov 27, 2007 10:50 PM, John Bellows <jbellows(a)skypoint.com> wrote: > Joel: > > I couldn't disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick > Norton last time. > > Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What > was the result--the December CQ "Here We Go Again" editorial? Once again > Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board > as the "Secret Society." > > I haven't said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting > a response this week; however Dave's most recent ODV suggests no > response is in the offing. > > As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to > clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the > facts or just "fanning the flames." We did nothing so W2VU felt free to > play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. > > A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry > how not responding to the "Swift Boat" ads worked from him in 2004. > > With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at > Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly > a substitute. > > If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully > pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members > on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. > > 73, > > Jay, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM > To: arrl-odv > > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial > > > Hi Dick, > > With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current > position > on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial > > I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally > result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the > cost of doing business. > > I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant > impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. > > If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial > anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of > the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling > publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this > stuff. > > I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ > Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. > > However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site > might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an > otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the > source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do > strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or > something. > > 73, > > Dick Norton, N6AA > > > > > On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's > editorial > > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with > writing > > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:16157] Re:RE: December CQ editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

I didn't intend to leave the impression that no response to the CQ editorial would be forthcoming. It's being worked on. The June CQ editorial came to unflattering conclusions but was factually based, other than that Rich made more of the Red Cross issue than it deserved. The December editorial is not factually based and merits rebuttal. Khrystyne is out today so I can't check with her right away, and therefore can't say for certain why the story of the conclusion of the conference was in the ARRL Letter and QST but not in the Web news crawl. The morning after the conference, while still in Brasilia, I sent her the news release issued at the end of the conference along with a couple of additions/corrections and several photos that Joel and I had taken to dress up the story. When I got back to the office on Monday I was consumed by the Southwestern Division disqualification and didn't notice that the story didn't make the Web. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Joel: I couldn't disagree more. We followed the approach now proposed by Dick Norton last time. Some six months ago we faced a similar situation and did nothing. What was the result--the December CQ "Here We Go Again" editorial? Once again Rich Moseson reconstructs the facts in an effort to tar the ARRL Board as the "Secret Society." I haven't said anything thus far because you said Dave would be crafting a response this week; however Dave's most recent ODV suggests no response is in the offing. As noted in the attachment my thought last time was to attempt to clarify the issues in an effort to see if W2VU was interested in the facts or just "fanning the flames." We did nothing so W2VU felt free to play even faster and looser with the facts this time around. A lie unchallenged becomes truth. If you doubt me try asking John Kerry how not responding to the "Swift Boat" ads worked for him in 2004. With all due respect, not even having an explanation of what happened at Region 2 on the Web page was a flat out error. The ARRL Letter is hardly a substitute. If Moseson is wrong we ought to say so by accurately and respectfully pointing out his misstatements and mischaracterizations to our members on the Web and in QST. ARRL and its members deserve no less. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:42 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial Hi Dick, With the exception of your last paragraph (which I have no current position on) I completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. 73 Joel W5ZN p.s. Hope your contest effort from HR was successful -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial I'm of the belief that being involved in anything will occasionally result in misrepresentations or misquotes in media. It's part of the cost of doing business. I'm also of the belief that the CQ editorial will have no significant impact on the League, even if no response is forthcoming. If you read threads on QRZ.COM, you will see a handful of perennial anti-ARRL folks lobbing grenades at the ARRL-perpetrated injustice of the moment. Other than the the anti-ARRL crowd and a struggling publisher looking for attention, hardly anybody is activated by this stuff. I do not think the ARRL should directly respond or engage the CQ Magazine people. I wouldn't be upset if nothing at all was done. However, the concept of a "Rumor Control" section on the ARRL web-site might be a decent idea. It adds a certain amount of zing to an otherwise pretty unexciting page. I'd also suggest not identifying the source as CQ, but just stating the rumor and then the facts. I do strongly suggest a heading of "Rumor Control - [Bandplan]" or something. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Nov 24, 2007 7:43 AM, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > For those of you that subscribe to CQ, you will see Rich Moseson's editorial > in the December issue. For those like me that don't, it is attached. > > > > It is unfortunate that Rich has chosen to fill his editorial with writing > based on blatantly false statements and rumors. > > > > Dave will be crafting a response next week. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:16156] RE: DXCC award Modes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Cheer up. You could be on the board of the Red Cross. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:37 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: FW: DXCC award Modes GM: As I was reading this morning's email I saw the following from N9FTC/4. (Greg -- Welcome to the ARRL Board ;<) ) In light of the current CQ editorial discussion it seemed worthwhile noting the following comment in Mr. Stein's email. "I have also been shown articles in CQ magazine that do not talk so highly about the ARRL and its inter-workings." 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Tim & Suzanne Stein [mailto:twstein@fairpoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:21 AM To: mallphin(a)aol.com; k1zz(a)arrl.org; cshalvoy(a)worldnet.att.net; w9wu(a)arrl.net; k0pc(a)arrl.net; af5m(a)cebridge.net; w8qid(a)arrl.net; na2r(a)nac.net; bmorgan(a)fidnet.com; w1yrc(a)arrl.org; n7ro(a)arrl.net; k6ta(a)arrl.net; gdixon(a)fmtc.net; n7ka(a)comcast.net; k5vt(a)aol.com; nt5c(a)texas.net; scotts(a)tartannet.ns.ca; k0ca(a)arrl.net; nn1n(a)arrl.org; staratula(a)arrl.org; w3tom(a)arrl.org; n3llr(a)arrl.org; w9gig(a)arrl.org; k9km(a)arrl.org; k0qb(a)arrl.org; k0gw(a)arrl.org; wd4q(a)arrl.org; wa5tmc(a)arrl.org; k8je(a)arrl.org; ki4la(a)arrl.org; n2ff(a)arrl.org; ka2anf(a)arrl.org; k0bj(a)arrl.org; k0ca(a)arrl.org; k1ki(a)arrl.org; k1twf(a)arrl.org; k9jf(a)arrl.org; k7zm(a)arrl.org; w6rgg(a)arrl.org; n6ajo(a)arrl.org; w4pwf(a)arrl.org; n4ros(a)arrl.org; ws7w(a)arrl.org; n5zgt(a)arrl.org; w4rh(a)arrl.org; w4ru(a)arrl.org; n6aa(a)arrl.org; aa7a(a)arrl.org; n5ok(a)arrl.org; k5rav(a)arrl.org Subject: DXCC award Modes Fellow Amateurs: I am Tim Stein N9FTC/4, a life member of the ARRL for many years, now living in Overstreet/Wewahitchka, Florida. I have just recently decided to hang some awards on the shack wall. The first was W.A.S. RTTY certificate number #474 dated 30 June 2006. I was greatly surprised and proud to have the number 474, as I thought that there must have been many more issued before I got mine. I then went to work on W.A.S. PSK-31 which I received 17 October 2006. There was no number on this award. It would have been nice if there had been one. I worked W.A.S. RTTY and W.A.S. PSK-31 both on 20 meters, however, there is no mention of the BAND worked on either award. Both awards would have been much more meaningful with more information added, such as BAND, MODE, NUMBER. I then went to work on DXCC PSK-31 20 Meters and accomplished this task on my 63rd birthday, November 4, 2007. I called the ARRL Awards Division and talked to a nice and very helpful young lady. She told me where to find the forms I needed to submit my cards for checking. While filling out the forms I noticed that there was no listing for PSK-31 on the form. I call the nice young lady again and questioned her as to how to do this. I was told that I would have to list my DXCC award under RTTY. I was dumbfounded as to why this was so. I was told that you fellows of the DX Advisory Committee had never made provisions for the new digital modes. The ARRL, as I have understood it, has used these awards programs to gain new members, retain old members, and to spur new operating activities on the bands. This has been a fundamental practice for the many years that I have been a member. I agree, it should be this way. Hopefully it will help keep the ARRL a strong working organization dedicated to us, the Amateur Radio Operators. What I cannot understand is why there is a consensus, with most all of the amateurs I have talked to in the last few weeks, about this issue of DXCC modes. I have also been shown articles in CQ magazine that do not talk so highly about the ARRL and its inter-workings. My question to you, to keep this note to the point, is: If the ARRL wants to increase membership and use its awards programs to do so, why are you so reluctant to offer awards certificates with the new digital modes, and numbers showing sequence of their issue. We the members are willing and do pay what ever fees you set for these awards. A few more dollars from us for the time it takes to put decent information on these awards would willingly be paid. I do understand there are many awards out there already for other modes like CW and SSB that you could not assign sequential numbers to. But with a little thought this could be done to the new modes and awards in the future. I await your reply. Thanks....Tim N9FTC/4 twstein(a)fairpoint.net

1 0