BIG bolts

n0dh at n0dh at
Wed May 15 17:55:43 EDT 1996

tomf at (Tom Francis) Wrote:
>        The only known and accepted method of prevention 
>        of the CQ CQ CQ Virus is the practice of chasity
>        and abstinence - which is to say, don't CQ..
Actually Tom there is an old cure for this that goes way way back.
If you know someone who has the virus, on the night before the
contest you go over to the base of his tower. Then with a pair
of pliers and several old fashioned straight pins from the XYL's
sewing basket, you insert the pins through the jacket, braid and 
center conductor of all the coaxes at the base of the tower. Next
cut the heads of the pins of flush with the jacket twist the
jacket around a bit to minimize the apearance of the hole. The
operator will experience a brief bout of anger, frustration and
withdrawal during the next 48 hours but these are normal symptons
under the circumstance and they will usually will pass.

It may also be a good idea to take along a large hunk (2 lbs or
more) of stew meat for your friends dog if he has one. You and
your friends dog will both be happier for the experience.


dit dit

>From 0005543629 at (David & Barbara Leeson)  Wed May 15 18:24:00 1996
From: 0005543629 at (David & Barbara Leeson) (David & Barbara Leeson)
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 12:24 EST
Subject: Further Insult to Amateurs
Message-ID: <42960515172424/0005543629DC3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

In reply to my complaint about the Ladies' Home Journal article,  "the 
editors" (lhj at simply defended their use of incorrect information 

>...illegal airwave users, such as amateur radio stations...

My concluding reply follows:

Myrna Blyth, Editor-in-chief

Your canned answer, a prime example of editorial gobbledygook, is a further 
insult to the intelligence.  I had hoped you would respond with something I 
could respect as intellectually honest, such as, "You're right, an editor is 
personally responsible for errors, no matter how they arise.  The magazine 
called the FCC for first-hand information, and confirmed that it is incorrect 
to call amateur radio communications illegal; we take responsibility for the 

You might have continued, "The FCC also informs us 'hearing radio through 
your telephone is a sign that your phone lacks adequate interference 
protection' and consumers should send interference complaints 'to the 
manufacturer who built your phone.'  The magazine unwittingly aided 
manufacturers' efforts to deflect their responsibility onto someone else."

You could have concluded, "As editor, I am personally sorry we insulted the 
amateur radio service through our error and will take immediate steps to set 
the facts straight by publishing a retraction."

Instead, your dissembling reply says, in effect, that I shouldn't be unhappy 
because, after all, it was only one itty-bitty little sentence that called 
radio amateurs thieving outlaws.  You say the error wasn't your fault, that 
you didn't have a clue you got bad information from a self-serving source 
(might they represent advertising revenues?).  Then, instead of forthrightly 
taking responsibility for your own actions, you merely express your regret 
that amateur radio operators might feel insulted.

Your convoluted email reply signed anonymously "the editors" tells me that 
no one there will do anything to inform your readers of your error.

You might want to send them your own opinion.  A good source of information 
is the FCC Telephone Interference Bulletin CIB-10, which you can dowload from 
the web: (

Barbara Leeson, KK6QM

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list