I disagree! I, too, felt that it appeared that this was going to be a
very ho-hum magazine. The cover and story titles didn't seem to "grab"
my attention. However, I sat down in my easy chair one evening and read
"The PJ1B Story" which I found to be most interesting, "A Conversation
With K3ZO", which gave me many more insights into this giant among ham
radio operators, as well as other interesting reading throughout the
magazine (February Edition). I enjoyed Paul Gentry's article, and found
myself wearing a smile as I read into Susan King's "YL Contesting"
article. The smile came from my thoughts that this is no "Low-powered
Lady!". I'd say Susan is out for contest blood, and I found that refreshing.
I wondered what else I have his missed as a result of my surface
apprehensions. Guess we have to lower our pre-formed opinions, and make
decisions based on merit once in a while.
I don't know how the magazine will fare, but it appears that there is a
good-quality editorial and contributing staff, and I have to give them
initial praise for their efforts moving into uncharted waters. (Bye the
way, Steve Morris, I may have learned something from your "Up the Tower"
article that could some day save me or a friend from personal injury or
worse. Thank you for those tips!
Well, anyway, since I am not known to be the best critic in these
matters, I shall now retire to what I do best...very little.
73... Steve / AA9AX
On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Charles H. Harpole wrote:
> Here is my review of the first three issues of CQ CONTEST magazine:
>
> I am surprised by the low quality of the writing. It is simplistic,
> often weak in grammar, redundant, and general to the point of
> uselessness. This reflector makes much more interesting reading than the
> mag. I just do not get much out of it. The stories on operating in
> foreign climes are interesting but rarely really centered on contests.
> The Russia story in March issue raised my hopes until I read it -- I did
> not really get the feeling of the article's title--what is it like there
> today? I did like the new QSL address (does that replace Box
> 88? --unclear) for all of Russia, but do I now have the assurance that
> that is the place to send -- no.
> The issues seem to be written for the beginner, and that is ok,
> but it still seems simplistic, and certainly does not serve those who I
> think were hot to grab this mag.--the real contesters. The ads are nice
> and few repeat what QST will print, but I've already seen them in NCJ etc.
> Where is the depth?
> 73, K4VUD, Charlie
>
|