Joel, The thoughts in your reply to Jay continue to be fully consistent with the high-quality thinking we have come to expect from you. Just FWIW, I take no exception to what I understand you meant in it. My concern relates to how long it will take before we can expect any action from our intent "to do a better job of 'getting our message out'." May we have a report at the January meeting on progress toward developing our process for "getting our message out" and the type of issues it can be expected to address? And, yes, I understand you, the EC and Dave have had your plates full if not overflowing for quite some time. Even so, I suggest we are investing meaningful effort to develop our definition of this phrase, fairly promptly, so we can put it into a plan and take action through the plan. The principal thinking behind my position relates as much to nonmembers as it does to members. It relates to the fact that a higher percentage of new hams coming on board in this era have had limited or no meaningful exposure to the culture of Amateur Radio (including ARRL) than was true in earlier years. One result of this lack of on-boarding in our Service is that a higher percentage of newbies than before are likely to have little or no understanding of what ARRL is, why it is and its importance. The result of such lack of knowledge (ignorance in the true meaning of the word), regardless of the field, always provides a fertile field for spreading misinformation, distrust and even hate. In this situation, ARRL-bashers beget ARRL bashers simply for want of positive and true information about ARRL. We are the only anticipatable source of positive and true information about ARRL and we seem to be "hiding our light under a basket."

From my experience nationwide with physicians and medical specialists, I can testify that sharing legitimate information (not spin) with those who were unaware of the facts in a particular field or area, typically resulted in a high percentage of former doubters and antagonists becoming supporters in most instances or neutral at worst.

In disseminating the truth, the guidelines are quite simple. Tell the truth, tell it in terms and details the intended audience can understand and use venues to distribute it where the intended audience frequents. Finally, avoid any effort to obtain revenge. I believe we already have the talent on the Board and at HQ to accomplish each one of these steps. OK, I've said enough on this topic. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@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 11:39 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16149] Re:December CQ editorial 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@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