[CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ

[ve6yp@shaw.ca (tony field)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Johnson" <rjohnson@tmlp.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QST vs. NCJ


> Then just get rid of it and use the funds to
> expand QST. The same for QEX/CQ
> Communication Quarterly

Some of QEX and NCJ needs to be put back into QST.

The problem with QST is not the contest coverage but the editorial
quality. A better put together magazine with much more interesting
articles by a number of competent writers would significantly
increase the circulation (and probably ARRL membership).  The
general revenue increase could easily fund the contest editorial
space.  Look at the editorial quality of Funk Amateur and CQ DL
(both German). If QST were of similar quality, the dollars would
be there and nothing would be lost. (IMHO)

I think the QST / ARRL needs some dedicated contributing writers.
Wish more folks from the professional communication side or very
active hams with vision would willingly publish in QST - obviously
not for the $$$$$.  This would make me "want to read" the
magazine.

Or maybe the majority North American ham population is a bunch of
old duffers (like myself) that prefer to flap their lip (or
fingers) and do nothing else other than operate and pray the ham
bands remain for a few more years.

Tony Field (VE6YP)
ve6yp@shaw.ca
http://members.shaw.ca/ve6yp
"The difference between genius and stupidity
is that genius has it's limits."


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com