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@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@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