On Wed, 26 Apr 1995 08:39:14 -0400, <RalphKD1R@aol.com> wrote:
[stuff deleted]
Ralph (and others),
First, Thanks for the the civil replys. I have received some replys which
are downright rude. I wasn't sure if the ARRL used this number for
other purposes. I have found out from another message sent to me that
they have another 800 number set up -- 1-800-32new ham set up primarily
to attract new members.
Yes, I will send the ARRL my comments, after all it is MY magazine. I
have no complaints about the quality of the articles within QST. As a
matter of fact, I believe it to be the best Amateur Radio publication out
there. My comments concern the paper it is printed on, the cover which
houses it, the plastic wrap which keeps it nice, and all those ads in the
front of the magazine. Period. As far as I know, nobody from the ARRL
asked the members which do you prefer; a nice crisp clean professional
looking magazine, or a ratty, postmarked, dogeared, torn, magazine. Dues
may change based on the answer. I was never given the choice.
Editorially, with exception of the advertising up front, the magazine
is the best of the best. It looks super! Great articles, great graphics,
great format! Why waste all that quality on poor paper, no wrapper, and
a supermarket tabloid cover?
I know I will get flamed some more for my comments here (I am sending
this also on the reflector), but too bad. This is my opinion. The
personal responses I have received have been 50-50 in support of the new
QST.
Again, thank you for the civil replys. The non-civil comments are
redirected to dev/nil
Len WF2V
PS: Your contest scores are printed in QST. This is applicable to the
contest reflector! Skip the message if you are not interested.
|