Hal, Bill, et al,
I just HAVE to wade into this one --- sorry!
IMHO, the absolute worst, and by far, stupidist thing that the ARRL
management ever did, was splinter the once great QST into spin-off
"...satellite" publications. I'm referring, of course, to their "QEX", and
"The National Contest Journal".
"QEX" ripped the technical heart & soul out of QST. What was once a "leading
edge" Amateur tech voice --- i.e. QST --- became an emasculated shadow of
its former self. Ditto the vibrant, lively contest summaries that USED to
grace QST --- remember those wonderful write-ups? Reading them was like
re-living certain beloved contests all over again!
No more.
Again, it's a bare-bones, half-a**ed excuse of a summary --- and they don't
even list all of the participants' calls or scores anymore, either! Just the
top dogs, by division / area. If you want the meat & potatoes info, you'll
have to go on-line (yes, that's what they personally told me, too). Really
makes one want to participate in ARRL-sponsored events, doesn't it?!
What's the "raison d'etre" of QST with an editorial policy like that...?!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I get more good reading out of
just ONE pre-1976 issue of QST, than I do out of a half year's worth of the
newest stuff --- and it's NOT because my head is strictly into the "...old
technology", either. I have nothing against the League, and I applaud what
it's been doing in defence of Ham Radio all these years...but I must say,
when my membership of some 30 straight years ran out awhile ago, & I stopped
receiving QST, I never even missed it...
I wish they'd "re-consolidate" QST, and bring it back to its former glory.
As its stands now, it's little more than a poilitically-correct "...trying
to please everyone but displeasing most everyone instead" kind of an effort
that will hardly make it collectable (to me, at any rate) like it continues
to be, but only in the form of issues from the earlier years...
~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Mandel" <ka1xo@juno.com>
To: "'Bill Fuqua'" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] QST
> [snip]
> I am becoming more and more disgusted with the lack of technical
> knowledge QST authors.
> [snip]
>
> Dear Bill, (et al),
>
> QST authors are politically correct. They do not insult or cause
> consternation
> for any member or advertiser.
>
> The articles need to be "sugar and spice."
>
> We don't want anybody becoming frustrated trying to find obscure parts.
>
> We would prefer the readers to deal with 9-volt battery projects and
> not get involved with HV, because that could be a lawsuit if somebody
> gets injured or killed from their project.
>
> We want the articles to be like television dramas, where everything
> gets a fifty-eight minute solution for the weekend warrior.
>
> The editors are where the technical rubber meets the road. Do you
> think it would be necessary for QST to submit technical articles to
> people who are well-versed enough to guage the correctness of an
> article?
>
> Years ago, when QST was in the small format and mostly B&W,
> technical articles had authors who spoke of the fine points of getting
> things to work, especially the WWII mil-surplus gear, and the
> Hints and Kinks department was often the best reading.
>
> Bill, people like you and me are just not welcome to submit stuff
> to QST. It's like someone with a good idea for a book spending months
> putting it together and then finding out that they need an agent to get
> published, and agents only deal with published authors.
>
> In college, a decent technical article could find a home. The IEEE
> would publish well-written stuff from unknown authors, simply on its
> technical merit.
>
> CQ, 73, JRSGB were some places for people to submit real meat, but I
> guess they've gone away, too.
>
> Bill, it's like television. We can turn the channel (remember when
channels
> WERE turned?), or we can simply switch the set off if we don't like the
> programming.
>
> That's why the reflector nets "serve the public interest."
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Hal Mandel
> W4HBM
>
>
> [snip]
> I am becoming more and more disgusted with the lack of technical
> knowledge QST authors.
> [snip]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|