>
>The bizarre set of circumstances that occurred to Rich as a result of the
>now infamous "Technical Correspondence" rebuttal (see reference below in
>Phil's reply), would have never occurred had the article been submitted for
>publication in a professional trade journal. Notwithstanding the ARRL's
>procedure for accepting an article for publication in the first place, a
>professional journal would have dealt with this issue in a true professional
>manner:
>
>Any issues as a result of Rich's published content should have been
>submitted to an unbiased, financially disinterested technical review board
>prior to any "rebuttal" publication occurring in QST. The League's review
>board, functioning as an unbiased mediator would, much like a court trial,
>review all evidence presented by both parties and decide what, if any action
>should be taken to correct any technical inaccuracies or deficiencies based
>on prima-facia evidence.
>
>Instead, the League decided to form an ad-hoc review board (the
>"contributors") without disclosing their rationale for selecting these
>individuals. Several contributors were far from being financially
>disinterested. Did Rich have a financial interest in the content of his
>article "The Nearly Perfect Amplifier?" Perhaps to the degree that he
>addressed the need for low-VHF-Q suppressors, although I don't recall
>reading an overt or heralding advertisement for his suppressors in the
>original article (someone keep me honest here). Nevertheless, this factor
>alone should not stand in the way of the article being published as are
>other articles which advance concepts that affect the financial position of
>the author or the companies they represent. This is different...much
>different. Without analyzing the contributor's data (if any), each
>contributor was allowed to take his turn at the soap box, one at a time. A
>professional journal would have never allowed single attacks, one-at-a-time
>to be published in a journal. Even in non-journal publications, so-called
>"letters to the editor" allow an equal opportunity to heard. I had never
>seen anything like it in a professional or non-professional technical
>publication of any kind. This was "tabloid journalism" at its best.
>
>A point to ponder: Did all the "contributors" agree to have their soap-box
>rebuttals published in the manner in which it appeared?
>
>I'm a strong advocate of the ARRL. However, as in any organization from
>time-to-time, mistakes are made. Unfortunately, the attacking and
>self-serving rebuttal had an opportunity to be suppressed at several stages
>within the League's administrative organization. What happened and where
>was the leadership?
>
? The leader uses low Q suppressors in his 8877 amplifier, however Mark
had to take care of QST's major advertiser. Count the number of full
page MFJ ads in the Oct., 1994 issue.
>
>> Rich wrote an article in QST, January 1994; page 30, "The Nearly Perfect
>Amplifier."
>> In September, 1994 QST in the "Technical Correspondence" section, page 71,
>> a group of "Contributors" questioned the technical accuracy of several
>points made
>> in the article.
>>
>> The "Contributors" were:
>> 1 .Frederick J. Telewski, WA7ZTY
>> 2. Reid Brandon, W6MTF
>> 3. Bill Clemow, KE7CX
>> 4. John C. Faken, KB6MU
>> 5. Steven D. Katz, WB2WIK/6
>> 6. Tom Rauch, W8JI
>>
>> I will let you judge for yourself on who was correct and who was not, but
>as a result
>> subsequent articles submitted by Rich to QST for publication were rejected
>by the
>> editors of QST, including his rebuttal to the Technical Correspondence
>disputing
>> his article.
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>
>
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|