🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Bill Gross wrote:

> will, so how would you do it differently?  A directed, controlled
> system of educated observers is what is needed during such a
> situation.  (Hmm could it be that a military model just fits this
> description?)  How would you do it differently so that we could get
> the same level or better in information about storm situations?

Bill asked this because yrs trly had said, in part:

> >Interest and participation by hams in my area (NE PA) has approached zero
> >in recent times.  Certainly part of the problem is the lack of exciting
> >weather here in the tranquil Endless Mountains.  But a significant part of
> >the problem (IMO) is excessive preoccupation with militaristic protocols,
> >buzzwords, and procedures.  

It was not my intent to bad-mouth the whole system. Indeed, there IS a 
need for order if the information is gonna be useful. All I am saying is 
that those in charge should put more emphasis on substance (like, what 
shall we call various observed phenomena) and less on protocol (like, 
reports will only be handled in alphabetical order in corridor seven). 
I really do not give a hoot (nor, I think, does NWS) who pulls together a 
net in a given situation, as long as timely, reasonably-accurate information
flows to the right people.  

Jurisdictional disputes are the province of people with microscopic minds.
I do not wanna hear chin music about who shoulda been in charge of what -
I am only interested in whether good information was collected and passed
when needed. 

will@epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA