Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


Dave K8MN

Dave:

Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on...

That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old
pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth...

Why would anyone be shocked?


John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on...

That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old
pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth...

Why would anyone be shocked?

Indeedintersting that Dave should try to flame Carl with a ringing
endorsement of Carl for director, were i living in the Atlandtic dision
I might rush out and rejion just to vote for him, because of statements
like that


John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


Dave K8MN

Dave,

I *have* had strong differences of opinion with the ARRL BoD's policies in
the past, particularly with respect to code testing, but the code test issue
is essentially a dead issue now, since the NPRM makes the FCC's intent very
clear and I simply don't see anyone presenting any new arguments for keeping
code testing that the FCC hasn't already considered and rejected, let alone
one that's rational and compelling.

I disagree with the current form/implementation of the "regulation by
bandplan" plan that has (virtually) everyone upset and have stated so quite
publicly.
I don't think it should go forward until it's fixed to the satisfaction of
at least a significant majority, so yes, I still have differences of opinion
with some of what's being done by the BoD - and I'm getting a tremendous
amount of feedback that the membership does as well.

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Carl Stevenson 1997

Taking selective quotes in isolation and out of context can be misleading
.... besides, my views have changed in some areas and I have learned to be
less confrontational over the years since these relatively ancient quotes
that you dredged up were posted (and, what has gone on in the relatively
distant past in heated debates on usenet has never been indicative of my
behavior on the air ...)

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the 30s
and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how fast
they can beep ..."

Even Mr. Hollingsworth, I'm told, has refered to "BOFs" (bitter old farts).
My comment about "deserving licenses today" refers to those who have never
gotten past the tube stage and probably couldn't pass today's written tests.
As you will see from my campaign statement, I strongly believe that the ARRL
needs to provide much better and more extensive technical eductation
programs, both for newcomers and as "refreshers" for long-time hams, so that
we can inprove the general level of technical competence in our ranks.


Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

Everywhere I go (clubs and hamfests), I'm getting a tremendous amount of
feedback/input that members *widely* believe that the League's leadership IS
out of touch, both with the membership and with many of the realities of
today's world. (So I'm not alone in that view by ANY stretch of the
imagination, which is one of my primary reasons for running. The other
reason is that, after enjoying the benefits of ham radio for about 30 years,
I'm at a point in my life where I'm in a position to give something back and
I want to do so.)

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who are
not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how the
good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of move
coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

This, if I recall correctly, was in response to the League's attempt to
effectively codify bandplans. That's what I meant by "end-run regulation."

Ed and I have long since gotten past my arguing with him and being
suspicious that he was "just a party line man," and we are good friends (I'm
also on good terms with Dave Sumner, Paul Rinaldo, and others at HQ and have
been working with them on BPL).
However, the basic thrust, while it could have been worded more
"diplomatically," is still an issue and something that I'm also hearing
from the membership as I visit clubs and hamfests.


Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "

I have actually CHANGED that view to some extent ... I could support a
reasonable "CW only" section at the bottom of each HF band. I do NOT
support phone band expansion at the expense of CW and data. I believe that
the "robot" stations that are causing harmful interference because they
can't adequately detect and avoid ongoing operations (due largely to "hidden
terminal" effects resulting fromt he nature of HF propagation) should NOT be
allowed to go anywhere in the HF bands that data is allowed. There IS a
difference between machine operation and human to human operation and the
machines are not (at least yet) smart enough to "play nice(ly enough)."
They should, therefore, be limited to reasonably-sized sub-bands.

Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned
veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.

I am committed to working with whoever constitutes the BoD should I get
elected. No, I will not be a "yes man." Yes, I will prod them for more
progressive appoaches to many of the issues facing the League and ham radio
in general. I will do that based on input from the membership, my technical
expertise, my regulatory expertise, my proven track record of leadership and
consensus-building in IEEE standards activites and other venues, and my
dedication to a healthy, secure, and harmonious future for ham radio.

Dave K8MN

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

AOF:

Exactly, they have become so blinded to the sorry, decrepit, decayed and
dying state of amateur radio--they have began to accept it as the norm!
And, to resist the very change which would breath new life into the hobby
and restore it to some dignity and status--high strangeness alright! They
make the mistake of not seeing the insanity in their own words!

Some things in life are just painful to observe, like a wino so addicted
to the bottle he just continues on his course, oblivious to the reality of
the mess and sorry state he depicts to other around him not sharing the
same drunken visions--so are the "lotus blossom eaters" here...

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:28:51 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on...

That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old
pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth...

Why would anyone be shocked?

Indeedintersting that Dave should try to flame Carl with a ringing
endorsement of Carl for director, were i living in the Atlandtic dision
I might rush out and rejion just to vote for him, because of statements
like that


John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


Dave K8MN

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
Dave,
cut

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "

I have actually CHANGED that view to some extent ... I could support a
reasonable "CW only" section at the bottom of each HF band. I do NOT
support phone band expansion at the expense of CW and data. I believe that
the "robot" stations that are causing harmful interference because they
can't adequately detect and avoid ongoing operations (due largely to "hidden
terminal" effects resulting fromt he nature of HF propagation) should NOT be
allowed to go anywhere in the HF bands that data is allowed. There IS a
difference between machine operation and human to human operation and the
machines are not (at least yet) smart enough to "play nice(ly enough)."
They should, therefore, be limited to reasonably-sized sub-bands.

Carl carefull there don't you know you are not allow to change your
mind

Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned
veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.

I am committed to working with whoever constitutes the BoD should I get
elected. No, I will not be a "yes man." Yes, I will prod them for more
progressive appoaches to many of the issues facing the League and ham radio
in general. I will do that based on input from the membership, my technical
expertise, my regulatory expertise, my proven track record of leadership and
consensus-building in IEEE standards activites and other venues, and my
dedication to a healthy, secure, and harmonious future for ham radio.

Dave K8MN

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Dave Heil wrote:

I'll write my thoughts on these quotes below. Hopefully Carl and
whoever will take them in a constructive manner.


Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Ouch! That never should have been written. If a person doesn't like CW,
fine. But that never should have been written by any person who would
someday count those people among his/her constituents.

Better things could be written, such as: We would be better off if we
could engage the more experienced Hams in the concept of lifetime
education. Radio technology has come so far that it can only be
advantageous to strongly encourage, perhaps even require the knowledge
of new technology, as old and obsolete technology falls to the wayside.

Probably better than calling them olde fartz.


Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."


"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."


These aren't in enough context for me to make any judgment on.

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


I do believe that a person is entitled to change their mind. This is of
course as long as there is adequate reasons given. Too many people have
been hamstrung by the idea that for a person to be consistent, they must
make up their mind early (usually by a party line) and to never never
ever change it.

So while it raises my interest that Carl has changed his mind on some
items, I am inclined to grant him the Benefit. I see nothing
particularly wrong with his present position.

That is that part. On the other hand, I am concerned with the "Olde
Fartz" business, as well as some discussions I have had with him here.
Was he just being a little wound up one day, or does he really support
removing the licenses of "whining olde fartz". And regarding elimination
of Element one, and the consequent endorsement of reduction of the test
requirements, after saying the "n" word, (never), do I take him at his
word, or do I be careful for (at best) strained interpretations of what
was actually said.

There ya go, Carl. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honest. I
might still support you, I suspect that you would do a good job, but I
do have some concerns.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

No one should ever be confused by the term "old phart", or any derivative
of that terms' meaning.

At ~55 I AM AN OLD PHART! But, perhaps there is fudge room" till 60, ask
a teenager and 35+ is an old phart, ask an old phart and he will claim
there ain't none (especially if he is the oldest-old phart--otherwise he
just points at "the old guy!" grin)

By 65+ you are past the concern of the world--if you are still
attempting to maintain control, have a trophy wife on your arm, and
find a viagra tab--you just look pathetic to anyone in the real world...
70 is ancient, 75-80 is dead, however some dead people are still animate,
and even past 80! Science is working on prolonging lifespans, they need
to work more on keeping 'em from looking like corpses! (I just love the
guys with a rug stretched over their head--if they were wondering if I
notice--I DO!)

I may be accused of "being insensitive", I won't even consider arguments
claiming I am in error...

A good way to know you are just in the way and embarrassing yourself, and
having others embarrassed for you, is when:

You no longer are current and up-to-date, break into long boring stories
of yesterday, and find younger people a bother when they are
participating in your activity and especially when showing you up, and you
fail to notice what a drain you are on the younger people about you...

.... nothing gets better as you get older, and that's a fact! (well,
except the younger women! grin)

John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:19:32 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

I'll write my thoughts on these quotes below. Hopefully Carl and
whoever will take them in a constructive manner.


Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Ouch! That never should have been written. If a person doesn't like CW,
fine. But that never should have been written by any person who would
someday count those people among his/her constituents.

Better things could be written, such as: We would be better off if we
could engage the more experienced Hams in the concept of lifetime
education. Radio technology has come so far that it can only be
advantageous to strongly encourage, perhaps even require the knowledge
of new technology, as old and obsolete technology falls to the wayside.

Probably better than calling them olde fartz.


Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."


"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."


These aren't in enough context for me to make any judgment on.

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


I do believe that a person is entitled to change their mind. This is of
course as long as there is adequate reasons given. Too many people have
been hamstrung by the idea that for a person to be consistent, they must
make up their mind early (usually by a party line) and to never never
ever change it.

So while it raises my interest that Carl has changed his mind on some
items, I am inclined to grant him the Benefit. I see nothing
particularly wrong with his present position.

That is that part. On the other hand, I am concerned with the "Olde
Fartz" business, as well as some discussions I have had with him here.
Was he just being a little wound up one day, or does he really support
removing the licenses of "whining olde fartz". And regarding elimination
of Element one, and the consequent endorsement of reduction of the test
requirements, after saying the "n" word, (never), do I take him at his
word, or do I be careful for (at best) strained interpretations of what
was actually said.

There ya go, Carl. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honest. I
might still support you, I suspect that you would do a good job, but I
do have some concerns.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Have you seen my response to Dave's post? I believe I addressed the point
you seem most concerned about.
(and yes, there were days when we were ALL more than just a bit "wound up"
:-)

If you have further questions, you can either ask them here, in private
e-mail, or e-mail me a phone number and I'll be happy to call you for a
chat.


--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dave Heil wrote:

I'll write my thoughts on these quotes below. Hopefully Carl and whoever
will take them in a constructive manner.


Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Ouch! That never should have been written. If a person doesn't like CW,
fine. But that never should have been written by any person who would
someday count those people among his/her constituents.

Better things could be written, such as: We would be better off if we
could engage the more experienced Hams in the concept of lifetime
education. Radio technology has come so far that it can only be
advantageous to strongly encourage, perhaps even require the knowledge of
new technology, as old and obsolete technology falls to the wayside.

Probably better than calling them olde fartz.


Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."


"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how the
good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of move
coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."


These aren't in enough context for me to make any judgment on.

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned
veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


I do believe that a person is entitled to change their mind. This is of
course as long as there is adequate reasons given. Too many people have
been hamstrung by the idea that for a person to be consistent, they must
make up their mind early (usually by a party line) and to never never ever
change it.

So while it raises my interest that Carl has changed his mind on some
items, I am inclined to grant him the Benefit. I see nothing particularly
wrong with his present position.

That is that part. On the other hand, I am concerned with the "Olde Fartz"
business, as well as some discussions I have had with him here. Was he
just being a little wound up one day, or does he really support removing
the licenses of "whining olde fartz". And regarding elimination of Element
one, and the consequent endorsement of reduction of the test requirements,
after saying the "n" word, (never), do I take him at his word, or do I be
careful for (at best) strained interpretations of what was actually said.

There ya go, Carl. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honest. I
might still support you, I suspect that you would do a good job, but I do
have some concerns.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:
Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."

"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


Dave K8MN


Perhaps they'll try to stuff the ballot box so they don't have to
welcome him.