Hey guys you have to remember that a lot of the people you deal with are
human and we can accept the fact that sometimes they make mistakes.
Sometimes explainable sometimes not. I find it hard to believe that someone
with technical knowledge and possibly average or above level of
intelligence could possibly find a reason to bash an organization because
of one issue that occurred that was obviously a mistake made by someone and
probably not one with the authority to do it. I don't doubt that it
happened at all but I doubt highly that the right person was answering
questions and replying to messages. That is a mistake not on your part but
certainly a mistake. I think I've made a couple of my time.
Could we do better than the ARRL? Possibly, but we aren't. I see so many
times that what they do has been so helpful and I think it's hard not to
remember that when I discover a mistake that they may have made.
I would advise everyone that has an interest in amateur radio to make their
donation to The ARRL one way or the other. This hobby would most definitely
not be doing as well without them.
Michael Martin
RFI Services
51 W Bay Front Rd
Lothian, MD 20711
240-508-3760
mike@rfiservices.com
www.rfiservices.com
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 7:08 PM David Eckhardt <davearea51a@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't feel bad, Kurt! I have had submissions rejected by ARRL for being
> "too technical". These days, they just want pablum for publication.
>
> If I were not a life member (thanks to my ex-wife many decades ago), I
> would not pay annual dues. But, ..........having access to this RFI site
> possibly makes it all worth it.
>
> Dave - WØLEV
>
> Dave - WØLEV
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 9:57 PM KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The following was posted to a longwave forum yesterday. I found it
> > interesting:
> >
> > "When LED bulbs first came out, I did a lot of testing for different
> > brands/models (now gone). All produced interference if close enough. I
> > wrote an article for QST on the results. They rejected the article and
> > said "Do not resubmit it or a similar article to QST or any of ARRL's
> > publications" and stated they would not discuss why nor give a reason.
> > Totally bizarre. I later met the president of the ARRL and he was
> > dumbfounded when I told him about this. (I have been an editor and
> > reviewer of an optics technical publication, rejecting more papers than
> > accepting, but ARRL's behavior was extremely nonprofessional.) A
> > letter in a shortly later issue of QST years ago mentioned the need for
> > research on this and QST replied that something was planned but I never
> > saw anything. (I always question why I stayed a member.)"
> >
> > Kurt
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >
>
>
> --
> *Dave - WØLEV*
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|