What part of the article does anyone find offensive? I thought it was dead on. Two points were brought up, each affecting the end result, volunteerism. First, that antenna restrestrictions were hurting Amateurs. True. The League has an initiative to stop these restrictive covenants or at least curtail their effect on Amateur Radio antennas. So ARRL must agree with the first part. Second, As someone who has been deeply involved in the "public service" scene for over 30 years, I, too, have seen sites go commercial and not support Amateur Radio in any way. I've seen commercial operators demand commercial fees from radio clubs that are then asked to use their repeaters to support public service events. Right now, in New York City, over 30,000 bicycle riders are involved in the 5 borough bike tour. 30 hams are helping. More were needed but the number of volunteers is dwindling. Served agencies in the New York metro area are being made aware that the use of repeaters is contingent on sites being available to individuals and clubs at no cost. The usual "what can we do about it?" is being met with answers like "find someone in the club who can reach out to the site owner and get US some relief or we cannot support your organization". When the rank and file volunteer hears year after year that there is no support from the very served agencies that ask for Amateur Radio support, the volunteer tends to stop volunteering. Offended? Bad publicity? Not in my book. Right on the money. It's time the public was educated to the fact that you cannot continue to put restrictions on the very volunteers you want to come out and help. I think it is naive in the extreme to expect people to volunteer year after year when they know that their hobby is being restricted and the served agencies are doing nothing to help. -73- Steve, W2ML