Gary M - W2UX <MAIL4GARY@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My question is "Why did QST print an obviously childish stab at QRP". >They must be getting short on things to print in the Correspondence >section of the magazine.
Some time back, we decided that we should not refrain from publishing the
letters that represented a reasonable expression of a controversial
opinion. Since that time, we have published a number of letters that
opine about various aspects of Amateur Radio and ARRL actions and
policies. IMHO, this is a good thing in that ARRL's Correspondence
column does not represent only a mirror of ARRL "policy", but can
actually become more of a public forum for discussion about controversial
topics (albeit a slow one. :-) ).
>I think that everyone on the list should send QST a
>tastefully worded reply to the letter in question. It is our hobby and >they tell us it is our magazine. Let them know that we did not >particularly care for the negative press.
>One man's opinion.
And I encourage you to offer that opinion as a Correspondence item, too.
I have seen a number of "threads" running in the Correspondence column
and a hearty and constructive response could help ensure that this is
one, too.
Do keep in mind that there are a number of active QRPers here on staff,
so the QRP community has more friends at ARRL than they might know. (See
QRP Classics, page 2. I did finally get a haircut!)
72/73 from the ARRL Lab,
Ed Hare, KA1CV
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]