tomf@neca.com (Tom Francis) Wrote:
<SNIP>
> The only known and accepted method of prevention
> of the CQ CQ CQ Virus is the practice of chasity
> and abstinence - which is to say, don't CQ..
<SNIP>
Actually Tom there is an old cure for this that goes way way back.
If you know someone who has the virus, on the night before the
contest you go over to the base of his tower. Then with a pair
of pliers and several old fashioned straight pins from the XYL's
sewing basket, you insert the pins through the jacket, braid and
center conductor of all the coaxes at the base of the tower. Next
cut the heads of the pins of flush with the jacket twist the
jacket around a bit to minimize the apearance of the hole. The
operator will experience a brief bout of anger, frustration and
withdrawal during the next 48 hours but these are normal symptons
under the circumstance and they will usually will pass.
It may also be a good idea to take along a large hunk (2 lbs or
more) of stew meat for your friends dog if he has one. You and
your friends dog will both be happier for the experience.
~8^)
DAve
N0DH/7
dit dit
>From 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) Wed May 15 18:24:00 1996
From: 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: Further Insult to Amateurs
Message-ID: <42960515172424/0005543629DC3EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
In reply to my complaint about the Ladies' Home Journal article, "the
editors" (lhj@mdp.com) simply defended their use of incorrect information
about:
>...illegal airwave users, such as amateur radio stations...
My concluding reply follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myrna Blyth, Editor-in-chief
Your canned answer, a prime example of editorial gobbledygook, is a further
insult to the intelligence. I had hoped you would respond with something I
could respect as intellectually honest, such as, "You're right, an editor is
personally responsible for errors, no matter how they arise. The magazine
called the FCC for first-hand information, and confirmed that it is incorrect
to call amateur radio communications illegal; we take responsibility for the
insult."
You might have continued, "The FCC also informs us 'hearing radio through
your telephone is a sign that your phone lacks adequate interference
protection' and consumers should send interference complaints 'to the
manufacturer who built your phone.' The magazine unwittingly aided
manufacturers' efforts to deflect their responsibility onto someone else."
You could have concluded, "As editor, I am personally sorry we insulted the
amateur radio service through our error and will take immediate steps to set
the facts straight by publishing a retraction."
Instead, your dissembling reply says, in effect, that I shouldn't be unhappy
because, after all, it was only one itty-bitty little sentence that called
radio amateurs thieving outlaws. You say the error wasn't your fault, that
you didn't have a clue you got bad information from a self-serving source
(might they represent advertising revenues?). Then, instead of forthrightly
taking responsibility for your own actions, you merely express your regret
that amateur radio operators might feel insulted.
Your convoluted email reply signed anonymously "the editors" tells me that
no one there will do anything to inform your readers of your error.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might want to send them your own opinion. A good source of information
is the FCC Telephone Interference Bulletin CIB-10, which you can dowload from
the web: (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/WWW/phone.html)
Barbara Leeson, KK6QM
|