wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:



last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up
with Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all
time peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about

your

smarts in going to "the source".


'Scuse me?? Where, exactly, did I brag about any of it? I simply fired
off another request for some info to a League management type and
Sumner responded as usual. Which is typical of the sorts of things he
and the rest of the folk at HQ get paid to do. I've done it any number
of times in the past and I expect I'll do it many more times in the
future. This is "bragging" on my part??

You wrote:

* Nah, no applause Sweetums, it's just and old engineer's trick which
* apparently isn't used much these days. "If you don't have the info
* simply get off yer butt and ASK somebody who DOES have info."

You don't think that is sarcastic and bragging about how you were
astute enough to do a simple task that apparently is little used?


I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.


Uh-huh. As if an 11% discrepancy in some arcane data in a hobby NG
actually matters.

If you read the reports, it doesn't appear that ARRL thinks the
membership numbers are arcane.

They are *very* much concerned about the membership drop. It isn't too
hard to figure out what happens to an organization that loses 13% of its
members in 6 years (1997-2003)





One of us is wrong with the numbers.


Makes no sense.


Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think
more likely?


I don't "think about" such things Michael, I don't take offhand
potshots

What offhand potshot? Is reporting a different result a potshot?

at whether or not a specfic dataset is right or wrong and
neither do the rest of us who are expected to responsibly process data
and crunch numbers.

Do people who responsibly process data (as opposed to say me?...)
happily process data that is wrong?



We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers.

Cool. I don't feel much need to chase my numbers down much further, as
the annual reports, while not unimpeachable, are an audited instrument.
Bad membership figures in an annual report would be bad indeed.



Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously.

I don't understand this at all. Are you arguing from authority?



Not my problem. His e-mail address is

No thanks.

I don't know why you're worked up about this. Show me the location of
my rudeness and "offhand potshot" behavior, and I'll be happy to
apologise here in the group.

- Mike KB3EIA -