Re: Ping Len GM0ONX, and other doubters


Brian Reay wrote:


"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
news:uth854lh1riel4dclv2eqsmivno34gvq8p@xxxxxxxxxx

RT wrote:

"All that remains unknown is when the policy to abandon CW for HF
access was formulated;

<snip>

FFS, it ancient flipping history, CW access for HF has gone, it dead and
buried, get over it.

Of course it has, twerp, but the RSGB's perfidy hasn't gone.

The one thing we should all be concentrating on is getting rid of the
ridiculous Foundation Licence or at the very least restrict FL holders to
70cm upwards with a limited time licence.

Well, FO and concentrate, then; but if you don't understand the
mechanisms of how the RSGB works, you're doomed to failure.

Which is exactly your problem.

Nice attack, but it isn't me that has a problem, it's the RSGB and the
'supporters of a strong national society'.

No one has ever denied that the RSGB policy changed, it clearly did.

So much is obvious to all, and the reason this discussion is taking
place.

However, were your version of events correct, all of the post announcement
surveys would have been against the new policy. That was not the case.

You don't seem to know how your own Society works.

The issue is the embarrassing Survey and the subsequent shafting of
the members stated wishes, which were for the retention of CW for HF
access. The RSGB had to turn this round. What we don't know, and what
keeps being avoided by yourself and the 'supporters of a strong
national society' is the point in time at which the RSGB formulated
its policy: was it before or after this Survey?

The mechanism of change is, as has now been said so many times, shown
by the timeline of Survey - Policy Announcement - the all-important
'club-nite surveys' - the vote on the Consultation.

Note that the RSGB neatly called it a 'Consultation' - when this
really was the whole point of the 'club-nite surveys'. The RSGB used
the clubs to put their view across, and the members were largely in
favour of the changes.

To change round the members views as shown by the Survey in under two
years was an RSGB masterstroke, and it says little for the thinking
power of its members. After all, two years after this, another
member's survey showed that the 'average member' was an old bloke who
like to build stuff and use CW on HF. To get people together in one
place, put in front of them a glittering future, and get them to vote
for it was worthy of Del and Rodney Trotter.

The members survey of 2000, already referred to, shows how the voting
might have gone had it been left to people to make their minds up
outside of a group gathering. Jesus got nailed to a tree using much
the same selling techniques as that of the RSGB to bring it about.

OTOH, if the RSGB sensed a change in members' views, proactively responded
with a new policy, all of the post announcement surveys would have been pro
the new policy. That was the case.

And what do you have to support your opinions?

I have demonstrated a mechanism, above, by which the RSGB brought
about a change in the members voting pattern, even though they wanted
the same things before and after the period under discussion.

Now, as much as you may not like that version, it is supported by the very
evidence you are using.

All you have advanced is an unsupported opinion. Please come up with
some facts to support your allegations.

Now, they could have been less proactive but, at the end of the day, the new
policy was supported.

Of course it was, but the original Survey, and the later members
survey of 2000, show that the so-called Consultation was a stitch-up
based on swinging opinion at club-nites.

So, you case shrinks to should they have been proactive or not? Well, they
were in the hot seat and did what they thought was best. If you think you
can do better, get elected and show us.

No, Brian, it is completely against all the evidence - where is the
support for what you are claiming? You have mentioned nothing.

The RSGB did what it wanted to, using ancient selling techniques to
overcome the clear view of the members expressed both before and
after, in two separate members surveys.

The final nail in the coffin of your unsupported claims, but which
support mine, is that when OFCOM decided to consult directly with
individuals and clubs, the RSGB's view of everything was swept aside,
even with its own members.

Now like it or not, that is the future. The RSGB is now an
embarrassing sideshow. It pushed through its own policy, manipulating
its own members to do so. Subsequent events, outside their control and
for which their previous techniques failed, have resulted in a
once-great Society being reduced to portacabin status pathetically
clinging to Bletchley Park's coat-tails for verisimilitude.


--

from
Aero Spike
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New game on 2m...
    ... Like the RSGB lobbied its members to get rid of CW for HF access. ... All that remains unknown is when the policy to abandon CW for HF ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: New game on 2m...
    ... Like the RSGB lobbied its members to get rid of CW for HF access. ... All that remains unknown is when the policy to abandon CW for HF ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: Blow down soon .....
    ... I found a 1999 reference to 'more club nite surveys', ... RSGB or the RA I can't now recall. ... the RSGB held a survey of members and non-members about retaining ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: Club nite surveys- fact or fiction
    ... Brian Morrison wrote: ... I found earlier a statement from the RSGB relating to the IARU policy, ... members, but they do show how the RSGB felt the wind was blowing. ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: Interested in _REAL_ Ham Radio? (As opposed to Complete Buffoonery (CB)?) Heres the FAQ for you!
    ... That's already been done a few years back regarding the retention of the Morse requirement. ... RSGB Ltd ran a survey in RadCom asking if members wished to retain the requirement. ... The MAJORITY wanted it to STAY, but RSGB Ltd didn't like that answer so they ran another 'club night survey' where they got the result they preferred and fed that information to the RA. ... So, don't hold your breath for a survey from RSGB Ltd regarding the Foundation Licence, and even if they do, don't expect them to respect the wishes of their members. ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
Loading