[CQ-Contest] what else is lost

[Martin Durham]

No Mike Ham Radio didn't die when HR (I was the technical editor there for its last three years) or 73 died...but a little piece of it did.  Death by a thousand cuts. We as the hobbiests and the vendors have to support each other...

I agree that subsidies aren't necessarily the right direction...BUT...if we aren't collectively reading the tea leaves...well we're all going to wake up one morning and wonder where the tea leaves went. 

Seriously doubt you will see any new rags that cater to the ham culture.  Raspberry Pi, arduino, picaxe...yeah maybe there...

73,

Marty Durham
W1MD
w1md at arrl.net

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 1, 2014, at 11:46 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
> 
> *IF* CQ goes away maybe a group of folks will start something new and better.
> 
> If there is a hole to be filled in that market someone will fill it.
> 
> I believe in the free market and capitalism.  Subsidies are an admission of failure.  If you can't keep the doors to the Art Museum open then what you are showing is not what the public wants to see or you are charging too much to get in or are open the wrong hours etc.  Change it up and provide Art or a service that the public wants.
> 
> We already subsidize them by subscribing or paying for the magazine at the radio store counter?  If people are not subscribing or buying the magazine then it is up to the owners, managers, publishers to find content that people will buy or other solutions such as finding a cheaper printer or adjusting the price of the magazine up or down as appropriate or find better mediums such as Itunes, or digital to continue on.
> 
> I have been a long time CQ subscriber.  I enjoy CQ much more than QST but both have a place and I find value in both.  However when I have a subscription and they cannot deliver what they promised me then they lose my support.
> 
> Ham radio did not die when other Ham Radio magazines failed.
> 
> 
> Mike W0MU
> 
>> On 2/1/2014 8:02 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
>> I am happy, like everyone, to see that CQ style contests may continue.
>> Congrats to the heavy hitters listed on the web site.
>> 
>> BUT, more is lost with the demise of CQ Magazine than contesting:
>> -alternative voice and view to QST....   just like the TWO newspapers in
>> cities of old, ham radio benefits from multiple voices... none of which
>> need be distinctively contending but plurality of ideas, contra web site
>> censorship, is good for the health of the hobby.
>> 
>> -cohesion and shared experiences and purposes... A group holds together via
>> shared experiences (the way squads of soldiers are trained) and shared
>> solving of troubles.  A real tangible magazine can help lots.  A real
>> magazine is under pressure to offer good, useful, entertaining and
>> promotional articles;  its goal is to include ideas, not exclude, and sell
>> to a broad readership.  That is not so true of narrow-topic and closely
>> censored web sites which live by servicing only those IN the IN group.  A
>> system that avoids lively debate and diversity will die.
>> 
>> I feel so sorry for those writing here who don't see the value of
>> continuing these services and simply wish to discard anything the market is
>> too weak to fully support.  I see no other substitute that will come onto
>> the Web;  instead there will be even more insular sites, happily
>> reinforcing each others' opinions while condemning and excluding any
>> reasoned alternatives.
>> 
>> A civilized society subsidizes the arts, for example, for good reasons.  I
>> see only good resulting from a subsidized CQ Magazine to help keep vibrant
>> life in this aging hobby.
>> 73,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest