"Joel Koltner" wrote in message
...
"Denny" wrote in message
...
"I wish them well, but I expect that 3 issues is the lifespan... With
everything available on the web for free, who is going to pay for a
rag?"

Plenty of paid magazines -- including QST and QEX -- still have many
thousands of subscribers.


QST is not really a magazine, but a membership in the ARRL and the magazine
is 'free'. I don't subscribe to any electronic magazines now, just two
others and I am dropping Comsumer Reports soon.

Not that I agreed with Wayne Green, but I did like the older 73 Magazines.
Also the Ham Radio magazines. QST is too full of contest/DX and other
things for me, but I do see how others would like it.

On Nov 20, 5:25*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
"Joel Koltner" wrote in message

... "Denny" wrote in message
....
"I wish them well, but I expect that 3 issues is the lifespan... *With
everything available on the web for free, who is going to pay for a
rag?"

Plenty of paid magazines -- including QST and QEX -- still have many
thousands of subscribers.

QST is not really a magazine, but a membership in the ARRL and the magazine
is 'free'. *I don't subscribe to any electronic magazines now, just two
others and I am dropping Comsumer Reports soon.

Not that I agreed with Wayne Green, but I did like the older 73 Magazines..
Also the Ham Radio magazines. *QST is too full of contest/DX and other
things for me, but I do see how others would like it.

I fully agree. 73 and ham radio magazines were not put aside in the
first 30 minuits
as they had a lot of interesting articles. Radcom and QST have just
one article for the ham to read
and the rest is just fluff and district officers reports. The articles
by QST seem to come from a
particular type of ham who agree with the small group of overviews
that pre vet the articles.
How long as it been since you have seen an article about radio that
was contrerversal or even challenging the statuc quo?
You will continue to see articles on code keyers, soldering coax
connectors, power supplies e.t.c for the next decade,
they all abhor change
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
I fully agree. 73 and ham radio magazines were not put aside in the
first 30 minuits
as they had a lot of interesting articles. Radcom and QST have just
one article for the ham to read
and the rest is just fluff and district officers reports. The articles
by QST seem to come from a
particular type of ham who agree with the small group of overviews
that pre vet the articles.
How long as it been since you have seen an article about radio that
was contrerversal or even challenging the statuc quo?
You will continue to see articles on code keyers, soldering coax
connectors, power supplies e.t.c for the next decade,
they all abhor change
Art

You said a mouthful which I can agree with. Or, in other words, same
old stuff delivered up one more time ... yawn

It isn't that repeats are not good for the newbies; it is just, they
carry little for those at the other end of the spectrum. But, now and
then they do toss us a bone ...

Regards,
JS

Ralph Mowery wrote:
Not that I agreed with Wayne Green, but I did like the older 73 Magazines.
Also the Ham Radio magazines. QST is too full of contest/DX and other
things for me, but I do see how others would like it.

The difference is that you did agree with Wayne Green on what to put in
a magazine and he was smart enough to fill 73 with things that everyone
wanted to read.

I enjoyed reading his editorials as they were very entertaining.

I doubt that he intended them as such, but if you read them or not, agreed
with them or not, you still could get a "good read" out of each issue.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM