Jay,
I disagree with you.
I apologize for not yet answering your email, however with the
exception of one week of vacation I have spent the entire month of May traveling
for ARRL and other ARRL business and I’m frantically trying to catch up
with reports, etc., one of which is a response to your post.
The reasoning behind my position will be forthcoming. There is no
urgency here, so I would like to respectfully ask you to hang on for another
couple of days while I catch up and respond.
73 Joel W5ZN
From: John
Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007
11:23 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: Re the Secret Society
About a week ago I suggested a way to address the
concerns raised by Rich Moseson in his “Secret Society” editorial
in the June 2007 issue of CQ Magazine. In essence the suggestion was to ask
W2VU for an opportunity to respond in CQ to the questions he asked in the
editorial. The idea was that a clear statement of we the Board did, together
with the reasons why we took those actions could at least be a first step in
answering some of the concerns raised in the Moseson editorial.
After I posted my comment I received several positive
responses, some via odv and some direct. Additional there were a couple of
emails from board members who didn’t think the suggested approach was the
way to proceed. That is great since odv was created for this sort of
discussion.
After that first flurry of comments odv has gone
quieter than HF at the bot
If the CQ questions had arisen in one of the web
“trash talk forums” a response would likely be futile, since those
gristmills seem more interested in volume than solutions. The questions raised
in CQ are different, they were raised by a serious and experienced Amateur in a
respected and public forum and we shouldn’t just leave them hanging.
My suggestion may not be the way to proceed, but it
seems that if the recent discussions about improving our communication with
members and non-members are genuine, we should do something and
shouldn’t let a serious question by a responsible voice in amateur radio
go unanswered.
Left unanswered the reasonable assumption is that the
statements in the June CQ editorial are either true or the ARRL leadership
simply doesn’t feel they need to answer. Either way ARRL loses.
73,
Jay, KĜQB