[RTTY] thats very sad Gert

[ke4qok@bellsouth.net]

This is a good point Bob, but I have mixed feelings sometimes.

It's kind of like discussing whether or not the a preacher should behave better than the congregation in general.

These folks have been put up on "a pedestal" and charged with representing the best image and interests of amateur radio and this responsibility is not just to represent the hobby to the general public and government but also to present the best possible example to the rest of the amateur radio community.

Having said that I can still see some of the scenarios you put forth being valid reasons for not using LOTW but it's still a little hard to believe that roughly two thirds of the people representing our hobby have never made a  "QSLable " conntact.

Bob
KE4QOK





> 
> From: "Robert Chudek" <k0rc at citlink.net>
> Date: 2006/01/25 Wed PM 04:45:35 EST
> To: <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] thats very sad Gert
> 
> Before we get too far off track and ramp up the "League bashing"... what's the point if 66% of the officers don't use LOTW? You don't have all the facts.
> 
> Of those 66%, what percent are on the air? If the ham is not active, what's the point of LOTW?
> 
> Of those 66%, what percent QSL the olde fashioned way, via the mail? What's the point of LOTW?
> 
> Of those 66%, what percent are casual commuter VHF/UHF operators? What's the point of LOTW?
> 
> What would the "acceptable" percentage of League officials using LOTW be anyway? I don't think 33% is unrealistic out of the cross section of radio men.
> 
> As a matter of fact, 98.7% of all hams do not use 1296 MHz or above. And surprisingly, 66% of all hams do not operate RTTY. Should all these non-conformists be cast as not being fit to represent the broad interest of the amateur radio community? Come on, what's the point?
> 
> I'm not defending the response from Frank, N2FF. But the reality of life is we all set our priorities and obviously LOTW is not very high on his list. But to take a broad brush and paint the other 66% officials as questionable in their ability to represent the amateur radio community is disingenuous.
> 
> 73 de Bob - K0RC
> 
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:48:45 -0600
> From: Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] thats very sad Gert
> To: RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <2538cc000601251048u14303ec6vce4e23481f9ab94f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On 1/25/06, Terry Gerdes <terry at ab5k.net> wrote:
> 
> > I find it very alarming that 66 percent of out ARRL officials do not use
> > LOTW.
> 
> You're confusing two groups of individuals.  ARRL members vote for
> Section Managers and Division Directors and Vice-Directors.  The Board
> of Directors then decides who will be President/VP, etc (much like the
> US Senate once elected the President).  They also decide who will be
> *hired* as CxO.  I know it *seems* like K1ZZ is King of All Things
> League-related, but he really isn't.  :-)
> 
> Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how many do not participate.  I
> think identifying members of the DX- and Contest Advisory Committees
> who don't participate (or who aren't good QSLers) would be much more
> relevant than whether or not folks like Mary Hobart are in LoTW (give
> her a break -- she wasn't even a ham until she was hired :-)
> 
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY/9 | plaws0 gmail | Travel by Train!
> 
> "They that can give up essential Liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>