In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

To which I'll add my own reasons:

1) The League presents a unified voice to the FCC and to congress.

2) The DXCC program.

3) Contests (especially FD, the DX 'tests, VHF/UHF events, 160m Contest)

4) Field Organization (to include the SM, net managers, Emergency
Coordinators, OO's)

5) League bulletins, whether via W1AW, local nets or the internet

6) The web page.

7) W1AW (I've also operated from the station).

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:58:32 +0000, N2EY wrote:

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'll add:

1. They haven't revised the Amateur's Code to be Politically Correct.

2. A wealth of history is available through the QST View series.

3. ARES

4. QST holds a higher standard for products advertised to hams than any
other publication.

5. Doesn't send several fund-raising letters per week although this year
was busy for ARRL, I received two such mailings in 2003.

6. A field organization that will help anyone with an issue related to ham
radio, whether licensed or not, or an ARRL member or not.

7. Repeater Directory

8. The Handbook

9. The Antenna Book

10. ARRL Web site

I need to leave a few more for others to list!

73, de Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

I love the ARRL because I'm a ****ing Dumb-Ass.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more
focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level. I'd like to see
more
technical focus on modern stuff and fewer articles on building regen
receivers
with tubes, though.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating
cost.

Having said all of that, I'll now surprise some of you who have accused me
of being
an "ARRL-hater" (not saying that Jim has made that accusation).

I recently paid the $975 fee and am now a Life Member of the ARRL.

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL
fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue
to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

It should be mentioned that Carl has done very significant work in fighting
BPL, both in the form of first-hand observations and measurement of the Emmaus
test site, and commentary to the FCC. But even he, an experienced professional
in the field, cannot equal the resources of an organization like ARRL. (And I
bet he'll agree with me on that.

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.

What else can be expected?

I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

Exactly! Just like NCI...

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.

I think the contest info belongs in QST as well as the articles.

I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff

Such as?

Perhaps you could write some articles for QST. I did.

and fewer articles on building regen receivers
with tubes, though.

Unless I missed something in the index, in the past 47-1/2 years, QST has had
exactly two articles on building ham band regenerative receivers with tubes.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

I disagree. The mag is permanent, the website isn't. Part of being a journal is
to document things for posterity.

I think the contest results, BoD minutes, and Section News belong in QST. As do
technical articles.

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

And has been for more than 20 years now. If a Product Review saves a member
from making just one expensive mistake, a lot of dues are paid for.

Remember the "Maxxcomm Matcher" (sp?).

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Every ARRL director and vice-director I've dealt with has been open-minded and
progressive. Including our present Atlantic division director and vice
director.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

How would you suggest they be done?

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

I agree with all of that except for one small point. The ARRL is not "them" -
the ARRL is "us" (the members). We elect the policy-makers (Directors and Vice
Directors) and the Section Managers (who don't make policy, but are the top
field personnel in our sections).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"I'm the ARRL"

(and so is WK3C)

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more
focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level. I'd like to see
more
technical focus on modern stuff and fewer articles on building regen
receivers
with tubes, though.

Memory lane.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

The CQWW magazine regularly presents information on the modernizing of
the ARS, and even has space to present contest information.

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

Ditto.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Having said all of that, I'll now surprise some of you who have accused me
of being
an "ARRL-hater" (not saying that Jim has made that accusation).

I recently paid the $975 fee and am now a Life Member of the ARRL.

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL
fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue
to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

I don't disagree that the ARRL is a valuable organization in the US,
and I will continue to support it. However, when it comes to the
future of the ARS, I'd rather stand before the FCC and handle my views
all by myself.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap. Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.

Always have an encore ready.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their
goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap.

What GAP?

Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.

"Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc
accusations against unidentified "some members".

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK