Fw: ARRL Proposal

[R. L. Blaney]

I just sent this to the arrl, (no caps).  I would hope that all interested Hams would also respond to the restrux address, expressing their opinions, both pro and con, about the arrl (again no caps) proposal.
73 es gud hamming, de
Dick, WB8MHE
wb8mhe at bright.net

-----Original Message-----
From: R. L. Blaney <wb8mhe at bright.net>
To: restrux at arrl.org <restrux at arrl.org>
Cc: wb8mhe at bright.net <wb8mhe at bright.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: ARRL Proposal


With the ARRL now aligning itself with W5YI on this issue, I now have the answer to a long standing question of mine.  I knew there JUST HAD to be a valid reason why I dropped my membership in the "Arabian Rug Reconditioning Laundry" in the late 1970s, and NOW, I know.  I have the answer.  The "cry babies" are winning.  Forget Amateur Radio in the future.  Make it all an extension of 11 meters.  Seriously, though, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  And, from here, IT AIN'T BROKE.  In fact, the only improvement that I can see that can be made to the licenseing structure is to eliminate the technician class, then you would have your 4 level simplification.  BTW, I also hold a GROL, with Ship Radar Endorsement, and formerly a First Class Commercial Radiotelephone Operators License with Ship Radar Endorsement,  and worked as a broadcast engineer for two commercial stations in the Columbus, OH, market.  I'm also one of your VEs, but I will continue to serve Amateur Radio in that capacity, in spite of the 'cry babies."
73 es gud hamming, de
Dick, WB8MHE
Richard L. Blaney
421 S. Washington Street
Circleville, Ohio 43113-1715
wb8mhe at bright.net
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/heath/attachments/19980722/a5eacae3/attachment.html>