A VE3NJG IS CZAR OF AMATEUR RADIO?

3755.ca

I HAVE A QUESTION:

WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR PRIOR CONSENT OR SEEKING THEIR MANDATE

HOW CAN ONE PERSON CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE THOUGHTS AND SENTIMENTS OF 65,000 CANADIAN AMATEURS ?

IF THIS WERE DONE IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT YOU MIGHT THINK THAT NICK WAS THE SELF DECLARED LEADER

OF ALL WHO HE CLAIMS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF .

MY POLITICAL SCIENCE BACKGROUND IS NOT STRONG SO I REMAIN OPEN TO CORRECTION BUT

I THINK THIS PERSON WOULD COMMONLY BE DEFINED AS A KING, A CZAR OR A DICTATOR.

WAS VE3NJG ATTEMPTING TO BE THE CZAR OF CANADIAN AMATEUR RADIO

WHEN HE MADE HIS STATEMENT ON THE 'S-METER' SITE?

OR WAS HE MERELY ATTEMPTING TO AMPLIFY THE MAGNANIMITY OF HIS PERSONAL CONDOLENCE MESSAGE

BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS ENDORSED BY 65,000 CANADIAN AMATEURS?

THE ENDORSEMENT OF 65,000 CANADIAN HAMS THAT NICK CLAIMS

ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY HE DOES.

OR DID HE JUST FLAT OUTRIGHT USURP OUR REPRESENTATION AS BEING SOMETHING BELONGING TO HIM?

NO NEED TO ASK US, JUST TAKE IT IF IT WILL LOOK GOOD ON YOU.

WHAT THE HECK WE WEREN'T USING OUR THEORETICAL ENDORSEMENT OF NICKS FEELINGS AT THAT TIME.

WHY LET A GOOD THING GO TO WASTE?

EVEN IF THE 'THING' DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.

RIGHT?

LET ME GIVE YOU MY EXAMPLE OF HOW I VIEW IT.

THIS WOULD BE LIKE WALKING PAST YOUR NEIGHBORS HOUSE KNOWING THAT HE WAS AWAY FOR A FEW DAYS.

SO WHY NOT LET YOURSELF IN (WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION) TO CHECK HIS FRIDGE AND MAKE SURE THE MILK ISN'T SPOILING.

IF THE MILK ISN'T SPOILING WHY NOT DRINK IT ALL AND THAT WAY YOU INSURE THAT IT WON'T.

RIGHT?

I MEAN YOU ARE TAKING CARE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AFFAIRS FOR HIM EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT ASK YOU TO DO SO.

YOUR MOTIVES ARE DRIVEN BY YOUR SPIRIT OF CONCERN FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN BLENDED WITH YOUR FELLINGS OF OMNIPOTENCE.

SO NO HARM DONE RIGHT?

YOU HAD ONLY THE BEST OF INTENTIONS DIDN'T YOU?

SURE, SOUNDS SIMPLE TO ME,

IS THAT WHAT WENT THROUGH VE3NJG NICK'S MIND?

AFTER ALL HE SAYS IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT HE REPRESENTS YOU.

HE SAYS THAT YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY HE DOES ABOUT ART BELL'S DEAD WIFE?

DO YOU?

DID YOU REQUEST THAT NICK VE3NJG SPEAK FOR YOU?

YOU DIDN'T?

WERE YOU ASKED FOR YOUR CONSENT?

YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT?

THEN HOW IS THAT ONE MAN CAN CLAIM TO REPRESENT 65,000 OTHER MEN?

I DON'T KNOW?

I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF THIS MYSELF.

WOW!

IT MUST BE THAT WE ARE IN THE PRESENCE OF ROYALTY.

ROYALTY HAS THAT FEELING OF BEING OMNIPOTENT.

APPOINTED BY GOD.

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS AND ALL OF THOSE COMPLICATED POLITICAL MATTERS.

The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings has now largely become an object of fun.
"Charles explained that there was a doctrine called the Divine Right of Kings, which said that:
(a) He was King, and that was right.
(b) Kings were divine and that was right.
(c) Kings were right, and that was right.
(d) Everything was all right."
(Sellar & Yeatman, 1066 and all that).

Although the theory of the Divine Right of Kings was perfectly coherent and treated as such by its exponents and opponents, it is often now dismissed as absurd. It is often falsely portrayed as more or less implying that God descended on a cloud to endow monarchs with celestial authority. In fact, in a period when most people accepted that God had created the world and human nature, its analysis of the nature of political obligation was perfectly sensible (and arguably less mystical than dialectical materialism or the existential moment).

I WILL TAKE MY LEAD FROM QUEEN VICTORIA THE NEXT TIME I SEE NICK I WILL CURTSY AND BOW IN THE PRESENCE

OF HER MAJESTY CZARINA NICKY

CLICK ON ME FOR A .pdf file OF PROPER PROTOCOL.

THAT WAY WE CAN ALL PRACTICE OUR BOWING AND CURTSYING WHEN WE NEXT

MEET HER MAJESTY.

LINK BELOW WILL TAKE YOU TO THE S-METER SITE WHERE YOU CAN READ ALL ABOUT NICK'S

SPEAKING FOR 65,000 CANADIAN AMATEURS.

http://www.smeter.net/ham-radio/issues-f30/canadian-hams-send-our-prayers-t369.html

EITHER WAY IT TAKES A TRANSPORT TRAILER TRUCK LOAD OF EGO AND ARROGANCE TO DO THAT HUH?

p.s. I wasn't included in that 65,000 because I wasn't asked.........were you??

VA3OU

3755.ca

The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings has now largely become an object of fun. "Charles explained that there was a doctrine called the Divine Right of Kings, which said that:	(a) He was King, and that was right. (b) Kings were divine and that was right. (c) Kings were right, and that was right. (d) Everything was all right." (Sellar & Yeatman, 1066 and all that).
Although the theory of the Divine Right of Kings was perfectly coherent and treated as such by its exponents and opponents, it is often now dismissed as absurd. It is often falsely portrayed as more or less implying that God descended on a cloud to endow monarchs with celestial authority.	In fact, in a period when most people accepted that God had created the world and human nature, its analysis of the nature of political obligation was perfectly sensible (and arguably less mystical than dialectical materialism or the existential moment).