[RTTY] RTTY RM 11708 in ARRL BOD

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > Their FAQ will finally give us their arguments for this ill-advised
 > proposal, allowing us to rebut each one.

I seriously doubt that they will give *any* reasons in the FAQ.  The
FAQ will simply be more "Newington Knows Best" and the Golden Rule
(SCS has the gold so they make the rules).

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 1/23/2014 2:55 PM, Dick Flanagan wrote:
> I think it will be appropriate that one of our top technical minds rebut
> each and every FAQ response with reasoned, documented and respectful
> arguments (where appropriate).  The arguments should be short and sweet,
> with an addendum explaining each in detail.
>
> Their FAQ will finally give us their arguments for this ill-advised
> proposal, allowing us to rebut each one.
>
> --
> Dick Flanagan K7VC
> dick at k7vc.com
>
> On 1/23/2014 11:33 AM, Dave Barr wrote:
>> Here's item 51 (with my underlining):
>>
>> WHEREAS the Board of Directors has received *_inquiries_***concerning RM
>> -11708 (the symbol rate petition); and
>> WHEREAS it is imperative that the Board of Directors *_inform_* our
>> membership in a uniform and comprehensive manner;
>> BE IT RESOLVED THAT the ARRL Board of Directors instructs staff to
>> immediately
>> prepare a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), along with
>> *_their_* answers concerning RM-11708 and place these FAQ onto
>> arrl.org with a *_static_* link on the home page for the pendency of
>> RM-11708
>> ------------------------
>> "Inquiries" is not the best word to define disagreements and
>> suggestions.  Opponents are not *asking* for anything other than a
>> delay in any rule making in this area.   Perhaps we should post some
>> FAQs too.
>>
>> "Inform" us ignorant digital types.  Not a give-and-take atmosphere
>> here.   It's imperial, errr... imperative.
>>
>> "Their" answers.  Well, maybe out of context, but the answers
>> certainly will be theirs...  but who are they /really/?
>>
>> "Static".  I love this.  Unchanging in the conservative sense,
>> listening to no one's concerns, or the interference that static often
>> causes.
>>
>> Item 47 goes hand in hand with item 51, showing a complete disregard
>> for two way communication.  Oh, isn't that what amateur radio is all
>> about (except for W1AW).
>>
>> Dave, K2YG
>>
>> On 1/23/2014 12:00 PM, rtty-request at contesting.com wrote:
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:32:13 -0500
>>> From: Mark<n2qt at yahoo.com>
>>> To: RTTY contest group<rtty at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: [RTTY] Rm 11708 in ARRL BOD
>>> Message-ID:<1E26AA52-4035-482C-B17B-AC95550E4384 at yahoo.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=us-ascii
>>>
>>> The board of directors minutes are out at
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/January%202014%20minutes%20FINAL.pdf
>>>
>>> Rm11708 items are item 47 and 51.  Interesting to see the NO votes
>>> listed in
>>> #47.
>>>
>>> Mark. N2QT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>