Why I won't subscribe

[W1DAN]

Hi Pete:

I have proposed articles to QST and have had them not accepted. I have given other items to them which they have accepted. QST is not as accepting of material as other ham and shortwave publications...again first person experience. I feel I am a good writer.

"I" am not complaining about the lack of AM material in QST...it is occasionally there, but not as much as many people here would like. I do enjoy what technical info is in QST, but by their public admission they do not publish deeply technical articles as they say the new hams would not understand it.

I get my AM info here and in Electric Radio. The ARRL should be covering the AM community somewhere to the gain of their members and they are not. They should represent ALL facets of the hobby. The ARRL SHOULD have a SSB section. They should have a section on all modes. Why not? I am a contributor to the hobby and a promoter, not just in AM. I follow many "new" modes such as Winlink and SDR. I am not a "gimme" person and never have been. You are mis-reading my complaint.

The ARRL used to have a "Technical Correspondence" section in QST which I enjoyed. Now much of this material is being denied to us members which used to be in our membership. Now I have to "subscibe" to QEX to get this info. It is kinda like having the right to vote in some, but not all elections. No Thanks!

I agree that QEX and NCJ were never free to members. I feel they should always have been. I do not know where the rest of the complaints went when the ARRL started this, nor do I care. I am being denied the fruits of the work of those writers of which I help pay their salary. I am not asking for a "freebie", just fair receipt of my cash investment for all the results of "my" organization.

Note I do not complain about the ARRL books. I am happy to buy them. AAA members get many publications (i.e. maps and books) free.

It is kinda like when you subscibe to a magazine, say the Economist, and you read an article which is a basic intro to the Iran crisis. They also give you a membership to their web page, and there you find you have to buy another subsciption to get the rest of the details of the middle east. Yuk! The Economist in reality gives you access to all the information they publish. QST should too.

And I appreciate the efforts of you, Paul, Mark and others in promoting AM in QST, at the W1AW station and on the web page. I have read them all with joy, thanks! But Gary here has done MUCH more than the ARRL has done in 20 years for AM.

Stay positive...

73,
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Hi Pete:
I get my AM info here and in Electric Radio. The ARRL should be covering the AM community somewhere to the gain of their members and they are not. They should represent ALL facets of the hobby. The ARRL SHOULD have a SSB section. They should have a section on all modes. Why not? I am a contributor to the hobby and a promoter, not just in AM. I follow many "new" modes such as Winlink and SDR. I am not a "gimme" person and never have been. You are mis-reading my complaint.

"AM info here" - Gary's tag line, "This is a radio site dedicated to AM. The reason most come here is to meet and exchange information about our mode and hobby."

"in Electric Radio" - ER's tag line - "celebratig a bygone era" and "... all about the restoration, maintenance, and continued use of vintage radio equipment"

Both very focused groups which is great.

ARRL/QST- tag line - "Devoted entirely to Amateur Radio"

Which, to me means, that they have to "satisify" all interests as best they can within the constrains of their publishing budget. If they could sell 99 pages of Ad space every month, probably having specific monthly sections for all amateur interests might be more doable.

The ARRL used to have a "Technical Correspondence" section in QST which I enjoyed. Now much of this material is being denied to us members which used to be in our membership. Now I have to "subscibe" to QEX to get this info. It is kinda like having the right to vote in some, but not all elections. No Thanks!

QST now just calls it "Correspondence"
QEX calls it "Letters to the Editor"

I am being denied the fruits of the work of those writers of which I help pay their salary. I am not asking for a "freebie", just fair receipt of my cash investment for all the results of "my" organization.

This would assume that QEX writers are paid employees (drawing a salary) from QST/ARRL which is a bad assumption.

Note I do not complain about the ARRL books. I am happy to buy them. AAA members get many publications (i.e. maps and books) free.

I must be asking AAA for all the wrong things. They always want me to pay. ARRL distributes lots of free info to clubs and organizations plus, as a member, you get access to lots of free stuff on their web site which non-members have no access to.

And I appreciate the efforts of you, Paul, Mark and others in promoting AM in QST, at the W1AW station and on the web page. I have read them all with joy, thanks! But Gary here has done MUCH more than the ARRL has done in 20 years for AM.

Both Gary and Steve and maybe (only one person knows) those "We" people.

[W1DAN]

Hi Pete:

Your quote:

"ARRL/QST- tag line - "Devoted entirely to Amateur Radio"

...guess the ARRL does not really devote themselves entirely to ALL of Amateur Radio as people here are complaining about a lack of support for their sub-section of the hobby here. To me your statement claiming "as best they can", implies they try but cannot really do it all, which should really also be on their masthead! To me, this sounds like an admission by you that you agree QST does not fully serve all of amateur radio.

To me, the ARRL could combine QST and QEX, articles and all ads as well and not lose any revenue from advertising. They would lose subscriptions, which I feel is a bad sub-division and they are too greedy anyway.  I have no problem of receiving many pages of advertizing...in fact I enjoy reading the ads as they show me the commercial direction of the hobby.

All QEX writers, being employees or stringers do get paid for their work. I guess you have not written for a magazine? My membership money cuts these checks for the writers of QEX and I do not get to read it with my membership.

The QST "Letters" column is interesting in itself, but has little technical information. This is nothing like the "Technical Correspondence" of years ago. In the olden days QST had a Letters AND a Technical Correspondence column in their magazine. Today it is "dumbed down" for the newbies. That can be OK, but I also want technical "meat" too. QST used to have the beginner articles and the very deep technical articles in the same issue. This only required the reader to turn to the pages of their interest. I can no longer do that with my membership.  If QEX was a separate organization like CQ Communications, I'd have no problem. I used to read Communications Quarterly and 73 Magazine.

QST is a good magazine. It just can be better.

I agree that the ARRL provides lots of free info, most of it being self-promotional. I have no problem with that either. It is good to promote yourself.

Just my thoughts. Sorry for standing on the soapbox for too long!

BTW, who are the "We" you allude to?

73
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Hi Pete:

Your quote:

"ARRL/QST- tag line - "Devoted entirely to Amateur Radio"

...guess the ARRL does not really devote themselves entirely to ALL of Amateur Radio as people here are complaining about a lack of support for their sub-section of the hobby here. To me your statement claiming "as best they can", implies they try but cannot really do it all, which should really also be on their masthead! To me, this sounds like an admission by you that you agree QST does not fully serve all of amateur radio.

To me, the ARRL could combine QST and QEX, articles and all ads as well and not lose any revenue from advertising. They would lose subscriptions, which I feel is a bad sub-division and they are too greedy anyway.  I have no problem of receiving many pages of advertizing...in fact I enjoy reading the ads as they show me the commercial direction of the hobby.

"lack of support"  What is this lack of support you keep mentioning? AM and SSB are phone modes; as far as I can tell, ARRL still supports phone modes.  I personally don't care if QST in its  publication from time to time, doesn't serve all amateur radio interests each month. I choose membership into the ARRL and  not to a magazine subscription to QST.

Since you have written or proposed articles for QST, you must have read "The ARRL Writer's Guide". I copied the first paragraph  but you can click on the link the read the entire text:
QST
Despite the common misconception, QST is not a technical or engineering publication. QST is a membership journal that appeals to a broad cross-section of readers. With that in mind, we're looking for articles that are likely to please the highest percentage of our readership.
An article that has the best chance of being accepted for QST is one that...
http://www.arrl.org/qst/aguide/

If a vendor's Ad appears in both publications, and the publications were to combine, the ARRL would lose Ad revenue. Vendor only has to run one Ad. Also, in order to add one page, I believe they actually have to add either 8 or 12 pages, due to the way the publication is physically constructed. So now you have increased printing and assembly costs and, most likely, increased mailing costs.

All QEX writers, being employees or stringers do get paid for their work. I guess you have not written for a magazine? My membership money cuts these checks for the writers of QEX and I do not get to read it with my membership.

I don't write for magazines. I leave that up to the smart people.
But, Under Membership Information on the ARRL site, it says:
"Fifty percent of dues is allocated to QST, and the balance for membership"
No where in the financial reporting do I see membership payments going to pay QEX writers. How do you know, and/or, where is it reported that QEX writers get paid from membership dues?

BTW, who are the "We" you allude to?

The inital post, that Paul started, and my 1st response right after that. "We" still don't know. It's a mystery.

[Art]

"Who is this "We consider" ......"we resent it"  
It seems to me, IMO, that you are trying to speak for all AM operators ("We" or maybe "We" is some other group; need to clarify) who enjoy this facet of amateur radio, or did you accidentally put on your Sparky hat when you wrote this paragraph."

Actually Pete, Paul has done one heck of a job representing his opinion and that opinion aligns well with many AMers. . . . more than I observe agreeing with your opinions as expressed here. Perhaps you are the one with the mouse in your pocket?

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"Who is this "We consider" ......"we resent it" 
It seems to me, IMO, that you are trying to speak for all AM operators ("We" or maybe "We" is some other group; need to clarify) who enjoy this facet of amateur radio, or did you accidentally put on your Sparky hat when you wrote this paragraph."

Actually Pete, Paul has done one heck of a job representing his opinion and that opinion aligns well with many AMers. . . . more than I observe agreeing with your opinions as expressed here. Perhaps you are the one with the mouse in your pocket?

-ap

Sorry Art; no mice here; maybe you have them now.

But, maybe you can explain what it says in the Technician Class license manual (it’s actually called the ARRL Tech Q&A unless someone is reading a license manual no longer in print)) that would make AM’ers resent what was printed there. Other than the typical ARRL bash in the post, there was nothing to substantiate the “We consider” and the “we resent it” in the text below. I think most AM'ers would want to know what was in the text first, to form their own opinion,  rather then some else doing it for them (unless it's, "I Speak For All"), conveying a response they may not agree with.

To refresh:
"But the most recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby comes with wording in your
latest edition of the Technican Class license manual. Please review it
for yourself.  We consider these licensees strong candidates to
transition to a facet of HF activity they can understand and can
become excited about. Your characterization is contrary to that, and
we resent it."

[Art]

"But, maybe you can explain what it says in the Technician Class license manual (it’s actually called the ARRL Tech Q&A unless someone is reading a license manual no longer in print)) that would make AM’ers resent what was printed there. Other than the typical ARRL bash in the post, there was nothing to substantiate the “We consider” and the “we resent it” in the text below. I think most AM'ers would want to know what was in the text first, to form their own opinion,  rather then some else doing it for them (unless it's, "I Speak For All"), conveying a response they may not agree with."

Actually Pete, I don't have to explain anything you direct. You are expressing your opinion and I respect that for what its worth. The point you choose to ignore is: Paul seems to have more of a feel of the pulse of AM radio than you do, as illustrated here and in conversations with other AMers. Your arguments contrary to that position come across as more red herrings, apparently intended to direct attention anywhere else but on the topic at hand. Such tactics are not the hallmarks of a straight forward person with a legitimate and defensible position.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Sorry, you're dead wrong on this one Art. Making it personal with Pete only underscores how wrong you are.

The reality is that Paul made a gratuitous assertion about the ARRL Technical manual. He also used ‘we’ without providing any information on who or what 'we' may be - another gratuitous assertion. As you well know, gratuitous assertions are facetious arguments and are easily gratuitously rejected. Why do you insist on defending something so clearly indefensible?

[W1DAN]

Hi Pete and all:

This is an interesting conversation that I feel I can learn from. I hope to keep it in a positive form.

I could also use the quote in the locense manual that Paul alluded to. My guess is these new hams get HF priveledges without extra info or guidance on how to use the HF bands?

As far as not writing for a magazine, it does not take smarts, just a lot of work. You should write about something you love. It is rewarding and you help the hobby while you are at it. I enjoy reading as it offers differing viewpoints, many of which I learn from. That is why I like AM. We talk about technical issues more than many other modes. I have read the QST Authior's guide and when I offered an article, I reveiwed it before submitting the article.

While they say QST is not a technical magazine, Amateur Radio revolves and is centered around the technology of radio. The "lack of support" is my interpereting here on this board the fact that the ARRL almost ignores the AM mode (except K2TQN's column), and people here feel the ARRL should offer a bit more coverage. People feel an inherent bias against the old mode of AM by the ARRL, whether it exists or not. I have no problem with this as I get my AM info elsewhere. I miss the deep technical articles that used to be in QST in the '30's-'70's.

As far as QEZ/QST advertizing, QEX 's ads are mainly for higher tech items, such as Mini-Circuits. I do not see Mini-Circuit ads in QST, so I feel they would not lose in the duplication of the parts advertizers. Adding a physical page is actually adding two pages or 4 sides. That is not different than QEX, it is just moving the pages from one physical magazine to another.

As far as compensation for QEX, from the web site: http://www.arrl.org/qex/#aguide

"Authors are compensated for published articles at the rate of $50.00 per published page or part thereof."

They also get 3 free copies of the issue.


Just my thoughts and thanks for reading!

Now go start writing an article......

73,
Dan
W1DAN

[Art]

"Sorry, you're dead wrong on this one Art. Making it personal with Pete only underscores how wrong you are."

'could be Steve. . . and I reserve the right to express my opinion just as you and Pete do. If you don't agree I can try to understand your position. However, neither you or Pete  provided a shred of evidence to support Petes claim that Paul is misrepresenting AMers in using "we" with reference to those AM operators. While, to the contrary, many, many, posts, numerous on the air comments, and discussions disagree with Petes position(s). . . most implying or stating ourtright that Pete is biased (to be kind) toward the ARRL. In my opinion Paul is doing a much better job of representing AM operators than Pete. That Pete points out and vilifies Pauls use of the word "we" in this context underscores this position IMO. . . . And spare me the PC "personal" BS. It was Pete that started the 'we' challenge. I stated my opinion on that subject after it was already open.

[Art]

"Sorry, you're dead wrong on this one Art"

. . .  we have the mechanism to decide this one way or the other . . . how bout a poll?

eg> Who best represents the opinions of AM operators? Pete or Paul.

The gauntlet is on the floor . . . .

-ap

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Obfuscation won't work. Repeated attempts to change the nature of the question only weaken your position. This isn't about who represents this, that or the other. It's not about Pete, or Paul (or Mary), me or you. It's about someone who used the term 'we' and another person who asked a legitimate question, 'Who is we?' Why is that so hard to answer?

Trying to make more out of this, or turn it into a Pete versus Paul thing is BS. This isn't a popularity contest. Who has the pulse of AM isn't something than can be legitimately measured in any instance (a poll is completely unscientific), and further, it's irrelevant to the question (Pete never claimed to represent AMers, and no AMers elected Paul to represent them).

Playing the anti-PC card is also BS. Trying to hide behind that one is weak. Pete asking a legitimate question is hardly a "challenge" and clearly isn't going personal. There’s nothing PC about asking your to stay on point. Of course, since you can’t answer the original question, veer off onto other stuff. It’s an age-old technique, but still invalid.

Several have already posted that they've never seen the ARRL manual in question. Clearly Paul's reading of such cannot represent their position. They can't even have a position not having seen it, let alone Paul represent their position. Please tell me how anyone can represent my position on anything, if I have no position. Maybe Paul is a precognitive psychic. Yea, that’s it!

No one is trying to keep you from stating your opinion. You had your say. I questioned it. I showed in clear terms how the original statement is both a fallacious and an untenable position from which to argue. You provided no logical argument in return. If you care to address those points, fine. But this sidestepping and making further gratuitous assertions adds nothing to the discussion.

[Art]

Pete stated/implied/inferred Paul had no basis for saying "we" as a representative of AMers. The individual sub points are not the issue. The response to Petes challenge is.

The question is not whether individual sentences are correct to the nth degree. It is who is more representative of AMers. Pete challenged Pauls credibility in this context. Steve, I think you may agree this is the larger issue as opposed to whether an i or t was properly adorned with a dot or a cross. If not, and you or Pete insist upon this line of discussion, we are on different pages entirely and it probably doesn't make sense to go on.

However, I suggested a poll to clarify whether the AM community reading this board think Pete or Paul  more accurately represent their opinions.

That gauntlet remains on the floor . . .

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The original letter was Paul's personal response to a letter or email Katie Brean, W1KRB, sent to him. There were no other signatories, nor was the ARRL letter addressed to anyone but Paul. The use of 'we' makes no sense in this context. The question remains.

Pete never claimed to represent anyone but himself. Your gauntlet is a bogus obfuscation, as are your attempts to make this a personality issue. I would have the same question, no matter who was involved.

Since you choose not to discuss the real issue here, it leave it to you to carry on with the foolishness.

[WA3VJB]

All it takes is two people who agree, to make "we," and that's easiily satisfied.
Y'all go argue.

[Art]

"Since you choose not to discuss the real issue here, it leave it to you to carry on with the foolishness."

I agree. We are discussing completely different topics. . . . and it is foolish. It is also foolish to expect either you or Pete to put the issue of whether Pete or Paul was best representing AMers to a show of hands of those who read this board.

Foolish, but not surprised.

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Art: I’m not sure where you got the foolish notion that I might be trying to represent all AM’ers. I clearly never made that statement. I represent only myself in this discussion.  But thanks for the ROTFLMAO. 

I believe all AM’ers, or at least the ones that are members of this forum, are fully capable of representing their issues and concerns here on the forum, to the ARRL and/or their Directors, and to any FCC activity that may request comments to their pending legal actions.  Their responses to the submitted “Bandwidth Proposal” was a very clear indicator that AM’ers don’t need any one individual to represent their views.

And Paul said finally:

“All it takes is two people who agree, to make "we," and that's easiily satisfied.”

Unfortunately that statement falls apart since you initially stated in your letter:

“…But the most recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby comes with wording in your
latest edition of the Technican Class license manual. Please review it
for yourself.  We consider these licensees strong candidates to
transition to a facet of HF activity they can understand and can
become excited about. Your characterization is contrary to that, and
we resent it…

Signed Paul/VJB”

If you had said, instead of “We” consider… to something like “Sparky and I” consider…
And “we” resent it to something like “Sparky and I” resent it, and signed it “Sparky and Paul”, you’re latest statement would be true.

Further, your first line states “…recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby…” In the third line, the “We” seems to imply or reference the thousands of active, enthusiastic participants in our part of the hobby since there is no other place you can point the “We” to. Hence, my original question, who is really “We”.

Although, in my opinion, what was written in the Tech Q&A manual is probably not going to shake the ground too hard under the feet of most AM’ers (of course we still don’t know what was really written there or even where it is in the book).

Anyway guys, I think we’ve reached the end for this part of the thread; I'm bored.

Dan, I answer your comments on the magazine stuff shortly.

Next
time,
sign
it:
[/b]

[Art]

"Art: I’m not sure where you got the foolish notion that I might be trying to represent all AM’ers. I clearly never made that statement. I represent only myself in this discussion.  But thanks for the ROTFLMAO. 

I believe all AM’ers, or at least the ones that are members of this forum, are fully capable of representing their issues and concerns here on the forum, to the ARRL and/or their Directors, and to any FCC activity that may request comments to their pending legal actions.  Their responses to the submitted “Bandwidth Proposal” was a very clear indicator that AM’ers don’t need any one individual to represent their views."


We are in total agreement that your statements should be for yourself only since you have so little support from the AM community as indicated by posts on this board. Particularly with respect to the ARRLs absurd "Bandwidth Proposal".

However, since anyone can go back and read your posts, whether you have ordained yourself as representing others to the ARRL (for instance) for the AM community, and the actual support you have from the AM community as authorization to do so, is up to them.

I also agree it is laughable.

With that I bid you and your mouse adieu.

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Hi Pete and all:
As far as not writing for a magazine, it does not take smarts, just a lot of work. You should write about something you love. It is rewarding and you help the hobby while you are at it. I enjoy reading as it offers differing viewpoints, many of which I learn from. That is why I like AM. We talk about technical issues more than many other modes. I have read the QST Authior's guide and when I offered an article, I reveiwed it before submitting the article.

I know, but I don't have any ambition to write articles. When I was in the corporate world, I use to write a lot of technical and sales blurbs and product brochures for my product line. It was always a pain for me. Plus, in my current life, trying to manage over 15,000 products, and more each day, takes a lot of draining effort. If you like writing, that's great; I just like making money while having fun.

While they say QST is not a technical magazine, Amateur Radio revolves and is centered around the technology of radio. The "lack of support" is my interpereting here on this board the fact that the ARRL almost ignores the AM mode (except K2TQN's column), and people here feel the ARRL should offer a bit more coverage. People feel an inherent bias against the old mode of AM by the ARRL, whether it exists or not. I have no problem with this as I get my AM info elsewhere. I miss the deep technical articles that used to be in QST in the '30's-'70's.

The issue with this, "centered around the technology of radio", is, technologies are advancing very fast and well beyond the technologies of the 30's through the 70's. Today, people seem to get  bored, hams included, very quickly with the same old physical "stuff" and the written "stuff". QST seems to trying to keep up with all the new modes, new hardware and software innovations, and quickly changing ham interests. While I would love to see more AM related articles, I can understand their position. Heck, if they ran lots of AM related articles, ER probably would have no reason to exist. I also don't recall any AM articles that were run in QEX either at least not in the last 10 years.

As far as QEZ/QST advertizing, QEX 's ads are mainly for higher tech items, such as Mini-Circuits. I do not see Mini-Circuit ads in QST, so I feel they would not lose in the duplication of the parts advertizers. Adding a physical page is actually adding two pages or 4 sides. That is not different than QEX, it is just moving the pages from one physical magazine to another.

It looks like the magic number for QST pages is 8. i.e. if they need to add 1 page of info, they actually have to add fill-in for 7 more. Note: 8 pages is two 11X17 size sheets, printed 2(8.5X11) to a side and on each side, and then folded in the middle. So, each 11X17 sheet holds 4 numbered pages. The reason for 8 page increments is probably due to the specific glue-binding technique that is used for QST. For QEX, since it's saddle stitched(this is cheap to do), 4 pages (1 11X17 sheet printed with 2 numbered pages to a size) is probably the increment number. Given the current QEX runs 64 pages, allowing for similar Ads, editorial pages, and other common stuff, they would probably have to add to QST about 48 pages or 6 11X17 sheets printed with 2 number pages per side on both sides if they were to combine. Adds a lot more weight to the magazine, so process cost to assemble would increase and ship cost would increase. Right now membership dues pays 50% for QST and 50% for the rest of membership activity. I don't know the split of members versus non-members who get QEX, but since QEX is a separate subscription, the revenue generated by QEX will go away. In order to balance the revenue lost, either membership has to increase(more dues coming in) to offset the revenue lost and keep the current 50/50 QST/dues split or membership dues has to increase to help cover the increased costs of puttting out this larger QST.

As for advertisers, the current QEX has 10 advertisers (excluding ARRL); 5 of those advertisers also advertise in the current issue of QST.

Interesting note - At the July 2000, BoD meeting, it was announced that QST going forward would be full-color pages, with a minimum of 176 pages. Pulling from my QST library, Jan. 2001, had 176 pages; Jan. 2002, had 176 pages (I'm assuming that from 2001 to 2002 the page count remained the same since I didn't check each one); Jan. 2003 had 160 pages; Jan. 2004, 2005, 2006 each had 160 pages. I believe the decrease in page count was due mainly to pulling most of the page after page of contest results.

Further Interesting note - Didn't plan this - But noticed that the January issue, starting in 2002, there is a bold banner saying either "Vintage Radio" or Vintage Amateur Radio". Articles in those months included "Age of the Autodyne", "Birth of the SARM", "Two Tube Tuna Tin Transmitter", "Vibroplex- The Company...", "...Collins and his Wonderful 75A-1, "The Rise of SSB", "Restoring A Heathkit", "Saga of a DX-100", "Restoring a Homebrew Transmitter", "And, We Had Crystals", "History of Panoramic Reception", "The Crystal Set", "Viking Ranger Rides Again", "History of Handheld Transceiver", "Log of W9PMN".

Everything I just listed here came from four  issues of  QST; Jan. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. At least vintage radio, which AM is part of, now takes center stage in each January issue. If more AM'ers, took the challenge to write vintage AM or vintage whatever articles for QST, maybe more issues could be filled with this stuff.

Now go start writing an article......

Nope, now I'm learning and diddling with software on my new software defined rig.

[W1DAN]

Hi Pete:

Good writeup.

It is OK for one to not write for any magazine, I try to return to the hobby some amount of what I get from it (helping people, clubs, etc).

Your notes on the Vintage issues of QST are interesting and it shows that QST does provide some coverage of AM. Thanks to those writers! I agree that there are more good people here who can write for one of these issues as Paul and others have done in the past. Most everyone can provide more of a contribution here. Your past experience with professional writing would do well here. You could experiment with your SDR, develop code for AM and send in an article if you are inclided, or just write about some fun you had with AM.

I agree that the radio technology is moving fast, and I follow it. AM is also progressing as well (Class-E, SDR, etc). So the ARRL years ago decided to separate QST into 3 publications, and I cannot read about Class E or SDR code in QST. That was done with a vote when I was not a member yet. While they can do that, it does not make me happy and provides selective benefits to it's members. Moving whatever number of pages from QEX back to QST is just moving paper whatever the number of sheets involved. As I said, they will just lose the relatively small number of subscriptions to QEX, OK and a few advertizers.

Remember the ARRL is a non-profit organization and they do not have to show a profit to their stockholders. So my opinion (which I have stated before) is they should make an ethical decision for once and "do the right thing" for Amateur Radio and include NCJ and QEX into QST for all it's members. I know they wont, and no complaining on my part will change that. OK, I guess I'll accept that. I will also get my technical info elsewhere and not pay the ARRL "extra" for QEX.

This has been an interesting thread. Have a great weekend!

73
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"they will just lose the relatively small number of subscriptions to QEX"
I have no idea how many ARRL members also have a subscription to QEX, so to me, it's difficult to tell how much they would lose if they combined them. Same thought for the NCJ.

For now, one of my big ambitions, and long overdue, is a complete teardown of the station. Almost every vintage rig here has some non-working or intermittent anomaly that I have been putting off. So the charge is to go through each piece, to check, repair, or throw, over the next several months. Fun stuff to do.

[AG4YO]

All it takes is two people who agree, to make "we," and that's easiily satisfied.
Y'all go argue.

Paul was speaking for me too, hence the "we".  Thanks Paul.