Bob, wrote:
>Mr Reid, I included the opening sentence in the first paragraph to give
the
>readers a point of reference. My response was to the the second point. It
>does not surprise me that those who would smear an entire group of fellows
>hams as "lazy" would resort to selectively quoting a debater in such a
>manner as to TOTALLY destort his point. Those are the tactics use by people
>who have lost an arguement on its merits. I will therefore re edit further
Jim Reid responds:
I have absolutely no idea what the above paragraph is about!! It certainly
has
nothing to do with my post of the title, "CW, the ARRL and QST"! Which
was about the "thinning" of the magazine by 23% in the last 3 years.
Someone seemed to imply that this was caused by the ARRL's
position about CW and license restructuring, and my comment
was about that.
I have no idea what that has to do with "smear an entire group of
fellows", nor "people who have lost an argument on its' merits".
What argument? I posted a note with page counts of ads and
editorial pages in QST, and the decline of each. Somehow,
evidently it has turned into a CW thing, which I must have missed.
The only connection I might conjecture, as in my previous post,
is the thought that continued CW testing for HF access is perhaps
put forth by some as being responsible for the decline in count of
vendors and their ads for amateur products in the pages of QST.
73, Jim, KH7M
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|