[CQ-Contest] what else is lost

[Charles Harpole]

Fellows, I am in the middle of a philistine discussion that mistakenly
valorizes the new and the trendy.  Some other magazine, but unlikely a Web
site, could take this discussion up.  However, I am going back to my
library, read some paper books, use an incandescent light bulb or the sun,
listen to a human being play a real piano, eat some organically grown
strawberries, wear my all cotton clothes and animal skin shoes, and enjoy
thinking for myself.  Later, I will use legacy technology, radio, to play
with.  73, and C U in the past, Charly


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:57 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>wrote:

>
> Things work exactly the opposite, Charlie.  I can't think of a single
> example where a distributed medium (which the internet is) results in less
> diversity than does a centrally managed one.
>
> The folks here on this reflector aren't the ones "discarding" CQ Magazine
> ... its subscribers and advertisers (apparently) are.  The hard fact is
> that CQ Magazine is no longer "vibrant" in the least (QST is even less so),
> and for the most part neither is the hobby it serves.  Print media in
> general costs more than the relative value of the content it provides
> compared with other alternatives, and you might as well lament the passing
> of door-to-door milkmen or video rental shops.
>
> Besides, there have been countless ham radio businesses that have
> disappeared in the last couple of decades and I didn't see anyone willing
> to subsidize them to keep them alive.  I don't see any reason why a
> magazine should be any different.
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
Charly, HS0ZCW