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@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