At 12:40 PM 1/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
> One reason comes right from ECON 101 and ACCT 102 (called ECON 2113
>and ACCT 2521, respectively, here at ECU).
<economics deleted>
All good points, but the real issue, IMO, is the decline in substantive
content. CQ's slope in this respect has been as steep as QST's, but they
also started from a lower general level. At least QST's product reviews
have some integrity... The dumbing down at CQ finally reached the point
where I cancelled my subscription and threw away all the back issues (after
pulling the major contest results.
I wonder if, at some point, CQ, CQ Contest, CQ VHF and Communications
Quarterly will merge back into one mag. With appropriate chaff removal,
*that* would be a product worth reading!
73,
Pete N4ZR
In Wild Wonderful, fairly rare WEST Virginia
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|