|[AMRadio] "My ARRL, Right or Wrong...!!!"|
manualman at juno.com
Thu Apr 24 16:10:47 EDT 2008
** My comments
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:23:52 -0400 "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Peter Markavage <manualman at juno.com>
> > And, after all these years, he's still the Director. Majority of
> > voting members in your Division must still like his
> Which brings us back to the 20% membership of US licensed hams vs.
> not members +/-. Less a case of so many liking him as so few left
> vote for him.
**Not my problem. You're the one that dropped your membership. I can
still vote when the time comes to elect a Director.
> > The in depth technical minutia was all moved over to QEX back in
> > 80's. No reason to keep it in QST.
> Could also be looked at as an additional expense which makes little
> sense in a world of declining hams. If the ARRL is truly concerned
> about being thrifty with the membership's dollars, wouldn't it make
> sense to cut maybe half the junk out of QST and add some technical
> content back into the publication that really started it all for
** I'm not sure what junk you're talking about. Or is "junk" things that
you're not interested in reading? QEX is a viable magazine for people who
want in depth technical articles and it is generating additional revenue
for them. Makes no sense to bring those types of technical articles back
> > Ads generate revenue to keep the business in the
> > black. Books sales generate revenue to keep the business in the
> > They have very few other options to generate revenue. Membership
> > helps, but it's noise in comparison to the other revenue
> I don't think anyone ever minded the ads so much as the overall
> of content since the 80s, or '75'76 when they went to the larger
**I became a member to support an organization; I didn't become a member
because I wanted a magazine subscription. I would have become a member
even if they didn't have a monthly magazine.
> > Personally, I believe they've demonstrated support for all modes
> > interests as best as one can given all the modes and interests
> > prevail within the amateur radio fraternity.
> Pick up any QST Pete, and compare the pages on, say....AM, or CW to
> the pages of contest results. In reality, the ARRL doesn't openly
> condemn other modes. More the 'benign neglect' approach mentioned a
> while back by Don, K4KYV.
** You're behind the times. Full contest results haven't been in QST for
years. They're in the members only part of the web site. In May 2008
issue, a total of 7 pages devoted to some type of contest activity
including one for contest calendar and one for upcoming Field Day. That's
7 pages out of 168 pages. You do the math.
> > Backing away, i.e. let some
> > other member put the "fire of enlightenment" upon them, and then
> I might
> > return, is not the answer.
> Approximately 80% of the licensed amateur population appears to
> disagree with that statement, Pete. That doesn't say a lot for the
> organization that claims to represent the interests of US Amateurs.
> It's not a matter of enlightening them, for the most part they've
> it clear that their minds are made up as to the path we all must
> Don't get me wrong - I'd like nothing more than to have the ARRL
> become a representative organization for us and see the contesters
> Newington replaced by more well-rounded hams. It shouldn't conflict
> with their publishing business and could only help the overall
> with increased revenues not only from dues, but additional book
> and an overall vibrant organization (what a concept!). There's just
> way I can give my money to a group who's approach involves saying
> 'join if you want a voice, give me your money, so I can tell you
> wrong you are'.
** Maybe you just haven't given them a convincing argument as a member to
make some specific changes.
> I'm not looking for an organization or publication to cater
> specifically to my particular interest. Electric Radio does an
> incredible job there. All I expect is equal and fair treatment, not
> being ignored in favor of a segment that many see as creating
> intentional interference and behavior that goes against the amateur
> creed, sanctioned by the ARRL and rewarded through multiple pages
> >From the ARRL, 'back in the day':
> "Considerate...never knowingly uses the air in such a way to lessen
> the pleasure of others."
> Sounds like any contesters you know?
** II think they only sponsor about 12 or 13 contests (phone and/or CW
and/or RTTY) in a year. Lots of amateur interest in contests based on the
number of participants. Some bad apples are bound to pop up. What's that
have to do with ARRL membership?
> I know you enjoy stirring the pot on this subject Pete, but it's
> pretty clear that the ARRL lost its way some time ago and has been
> going downhill since. Dismissing low membership as somehow being a
> small piece of the pie doesn't excuse the behavior or downward
> Particularly since they're supposed to serve at the pleasure of the
> membership. All 20%. But I guess when you're running a contest
> Good luck in the corntest!
** Membership is up; you should read the BoD meeting minutes. Actually, I
don't think the ARRL has lost their way. I think there are some amateurs
who resist change, like it the way it was "back in the good old days",
and believe they are being "short-sheeted" because their interest doesn't
command a high visibility as it once did.
** Pete, wa2cwa
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 21 Jan 2018.