In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

In the eighth paragraph, he mentions "baffling regulations."

Merriam-Webster on-line has this to say about baffle:
---
baffle
One entry found for baffle.

Main Entry: 1baf·fle
Pronunciation: 'ba-f&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): baf·fled; baf·fling /-f(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably alteration of Middle English (Sc) bawchillen to
denounce, discredit publicly
1 : to defeat or check (as a person) by confusing or puzzling :
DISCONCERT
2 : to check or break the force or flow of by or as if by a baffle
synonym see FRUSTRATE
- baf·fle·ment /-f&l-m&nt/ noun
- baf·fler /-f(&-)l&r/ noun
- baf·fling·ly /'ba-fli[ng]-lE/ adverb
---

I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.

wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?

breity cut
I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.

some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.

very generous

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?

Get your check book out...

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut

No sweatty-dah.

I've often commented on the need for our regulations to make sense.
They need to be vertically and horizontally consistent. They need not
be arbitrary. They need not baffle.

some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife

True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

Now David Sumner, speaking for the ARRL in the pages of QST validates
what I've said and have been attacked for.

Thanks you Extras. I'm sure your hearts were in the right place.

very generous

I'm that kind of guy.

BTW, the March issue of CQ Magazine has an interesting editorial on the
rewrite of the Technician QP. It might even be on line. Zero Bias by
Rich/WV2U addresses the various characters that claim that the ARS is
being dumbed down.

I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?

Get your check book out...
not for them

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut

No sweatty-dah.

some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife

True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.

no one will ever codify it which another reason the FCC will drop it

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.

one license would be best

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit

an old freind wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
In the April iss issue of QST, David Sumner K1ZZ editorializes the new
public relations campaign "hello..."

does this mean for what you ca read I can expect another set mailing
form them?

Get your check book out...
not for them

Honestly, I don't know how "Hello..." could cost much if anything.
It's a campaign to get mostly existing amateurs to recruit new hams.
The ARRL is popping for a new video and website, and thats about it.
Hell, I'll even buy one of their bumper stickers and speak of amateur
radio to anyone who asks about it.

breity cut

No sweatty-dah.

some of them do end up having to be arbitray band edges but you are
right learn the inanities of the was what made it very rough teachingmy
wife

True. But there are lots of internal amateur privileges that are
inconsistent from band to band. And I still think if we have a pass
fail exam based on Farnsworth code that it should be codified in Part
97.

no one will ever codify it which another reason the FCC will drop it

But I'm still in favor of Hans' one license ARS. But if we're going to
chop it up into itty bitty pieces, we might as well be consistent from
band to band.

one license would be best

Yet I've been attacked again and again and again by the Extra-Elite of
RRAP wrt this topic.

I've enjoyed catching up on my ham related reading.

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit

It's kind of nice to be able to read another ham's opinions without
being called a liar and/or a homo.

wrote:
an old freind wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

bb

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_march06.pdf

not a bad bit

It's kind of nice to be able to read another ham's opinions without
being called a liar and/or a homo.

yea it is nice or lazy disrepectful or a child molestor