Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] March QST cover

To: "Charles Farr" <cefarr@hughes.net>, towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] March QST cover
From: W4AAW@aol.com via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Reply-to: W4AAW@aol.com <W4AAW@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:31:00 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Criticism is not always "bashing."

No magazine is above criticism by its subscribers.

Expressing disappointment is just that:  Expressing disappointment.

When a subscriber to a magazine is displeased, it is not the subscriber's 
obligation to come up with ways to fix the source of his displeasure.

Magazines have paid staff and it is their job to respond when enough 
subscribers register displeasure.

73 Mike W4AAW

----- Reply message -----
From: "Charles Farr" <cefarr@hughes.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] March QST cover
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 10:55 AM

Seems to me, that way too much emotion is involved here. Any opportunity 
to bash the ARRL, and it's publications appears to be more important 
than providing real solutions to observed errors. I think everyone is 
aware of the popular saying about opinions.

Over the years, QST, and other league publications have likely 
introduced more people to ham radio than any other. There seems to be a 
tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. And because of the 
membership base, legal representation is available to the amateur radio 
community at large. Generally, one is asked for input on these matters 
and the opportunity to weigh in is available.

As for safety, having been a corporate safety officer among my many 
other career jobs, there is little in my life that is more important. Do 
it right, and live to do it again the next time. I seriously doubt that 
most hams have any idea that the model in the cover photo know enough to 
understand what all the complaining is about. Chris finally pointed out 
a few of the errors in the picture. Not being a climbing professional, 
as most hams are not, these errors were not immediately apparent to me. 
Perhaps the pretty girl distracted me from noticing.

Instead of name-calling, and bashing the League, take pro-active 
measures to make sure that the League pays more attention to the 
details. Nobody's perfect, even those whose egos and expertise drive 
their opinions.

73

Chuck, W6AJW


On 02/27/2017 05:57 AM, EZ Rhino wrote:
> Funny, I wrote a thing about this last week when I received the QST in the 
> mail, and decided not to send it to the TT reflector so I deleted it.  I 
> wanted to see if anyone else noticed it.
>
> Couple points....
>
> I'm pretty sure this is a staged photo.  If you look closely you can see at 
> least one gorilla hook on the tower rung near her right arm.  So the green 
> rope on her harness back isn't the only thing there as a safety device.  
> Secondly, the green rope appears to be tied with a two half hitches.  Any 
> climber knows this isn't the kind of knot to use on a safety line, and it's 
> improperly tied at that!  A figure eight follow through is the correct knot, 
> and you can secure the tail with a half hitch if you want, or better yet, 
> half of a grapevine knot.  In the time it would take to use three zip ties 
> (as pictured) you could do the proper hook up.
>
> Yeah, they blew it.  Hopefully we can all learn how to do this properly in 
> the future...so it can serve a useful purpose to us.
>
> Chris
> KF7P
>
>
>

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>