>Rich said:
>
>>Now it's "of by and for amateur radio advertisers.
>
>Possibly a bit unfair, Rich, since the advertising is what pays the bills.
/\ When George Grammar was QST's tech editor, he reportedly kept
advertisers in line. This seems to have been a major factor in people
trusting QST ads. My guess is that if an amplifier being lab-tested for
a 1950s QST review exhibited intermittent arcing, Grammer would have
likely have telephoned the manufacturer, described the problem, and, if
necessary, made them an offer they could not refuse. In the end,
everyone would have won. Customers would have wound up with a more
stable amplifier. There would have been fewer warranty-returns, and QST
would have eventually gained more subscribers and more advertisements. .
. Happy customers are like a snowball rolling down a snowdrift.
>To my mind, the greatest thing abt ARRL is the effort put into defending
amateur
>radio internationally - where it counts. If you've got no frequencies, you've
>got no amateur radio. They do a poor job of blowing their own trumpet on
that,
>though.
>
/\ I have heard this claim for at least 4 decades. It is spelled out
in no uncertain terms in the 1955 *Radio Amateur's Handbook*.
- A QST staffer told me that the biggest laugher in hamdom is the idea
that ARRL members think they control the League by voting for ARRL
Directors. . . Are you familiar with the term "shaking-hands money"?
>
cheers, Peter
>
>
- R. L. Measures, 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
|