On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, "
wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:
So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? *The way I
see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. *Ham radio
needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
start. However, it was only the beginning.

It will be very tough to grow ham radio. *We've "saturated the market" so to
speak. *If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. *We have
2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
thousand people. *While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
leisure pursuits. *We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
level. *It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
next decade or so before leveling out.

* *Dee, I give you astandingovationfor admitting that!

* *At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
* *who admits what has been visible for years.

* *The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.

Which old paradigms, Len?

What should the old paradigms be replaced with?

* *"Ham radio" needs to look at itself and its standards
* *very, very carefully.

Agreed.

Which standards should be changed?

* *The ARRL just doesn't have it to REALLY promote the hobby.
* *It hasn't had it for years. *

What would you have them do that is not being done now?

The ONLY promotion comes from
* *relatively-isolated (from League hierarchy) groups who have
* *actively pursued promotion themselves. *

Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?

One of the most visible promotions of amateur radio is Field Day.
Every
club Field Day I have seen in the past 20+ years has made a point of
setting up in a public place, handing out literature, getting
themselves in the local papers and sometimes on TV.

Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.

ARRL's main
* *"interest" is promoting its (de facto) business of selling
* *publications. *It IS a multi-million-annual-income
* *corporation despite what Believers say is "non-profit."

The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.

* *The League must CHANGE its political position. *Radically.

Why?

And how should it change?

* *Singing to the chorus of other amateurs about how good they
* *are is what the League leaders may want...but it is off-
* *putting to the majority. *Either they show REAL leader-
* *ship as a membership organization and get with the
* *mainstream or just be a publisher of niche activities.

What would constitute "REAL leadership"?

Who was it that led the fight against BPL?

* *There really isn't much choice for them. *They've resisted
* *and resisted and resisted BASIC changes to amateur radio
* *activity for years. *

Which changes?

As a result they've NOT increased
* *their membership by any worthwhile amount for years. *The
* *largest amateur radio licensee class is Technician. *It's
* *been that way for years...yet the League just shines off
* *that easily-observable fact.

I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
articles aimed at Technicians.

* *Those who really and truly LIKE amateur radio MUST resist
* *the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
* *"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
* *in amateurism at the same time they are looking down their
* *noses at others.*Despite how much they think of themselves
* *and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
* *shared by others, the mainstream. *

Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?

What should the standards be?

They MUST learn that
* *not all "newbies" MUST get into amateur radio as teen-
* *agers. *They MUST learn that teen-agers have many MORE
* *diversions of very interesting activities AVAILABLE.
* *Not the latest fad interest or popular entertainment but
* *very real electronic activities that don't touch on
* *radio...or, if it does touch on radio, that radio is very
* *much more and farther from the traditional HF "short-
* *wave" in the real world. *It is what IS, not what
* *individual olde-tymers want to preserve, that intangible
* *wonder of something shown to them long, long ago.

US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
of
the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
resources
of adults.

* *I don't have the answers, don't pretend to. *

You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.

But, I can
* *SEE what has happened, SEE cause-and-effect, and do not
* *PRETEND that "radio" has remained static since the first
* *olde-tymers "discovered" it.

Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
causation.

For example, the repeater boom of the late 1970s-mid-1990s brought a
lot
of people into amateur radio who were looking for a personal radio
communications
service. They were looking for a radio service that was better behaved
and more reliable than cb, for local/regional personal communications.
The Technician license was their ticket, and became even more popular
when its written test was simplified (1987) and lost its Morse Code
test (1991).

We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
all but disappeared.

Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
growth in US amateur radio.

* *I'm not an amateur. *I'm a professinal in electronics.
* *Yet, I've been a hobbyist in electronics since before
* *most of you readers existed. *I've seen the whole of
* *electronics ("radio" is a subset of that) CHANGE radically
* *in my lifetime. *

Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:

"MUST resist the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
......at the same time they are looking down their
noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
shared by others, the mainstream."

I've also seen that younger olde-tymers
* *bitterly resist change, change that they cannot control.

Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
changes?

For example, the traditional single-family detached house used to be
the
"standard" home that most Americans wanted to buy. It was considered
the most desirable.
But in recent decades, alternative home forms have become popular,
such as condominiums, homes with in-law suites, etc. More and more
American homeowners do
not own a single-family detached house. The old paradigms don't work
for them,

Yet some people bitterly resist the zoning changes that would
accomodate the new
era of real estate.

See the parallels?

* *Those who resist change can alter the course of future
* *amateur radio by simply causing its stagnation and
* *eventual demise.

Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
needed, why should it be supported?

* *Too bad I'm on your "kill list."

Len, it's a very safe bet that the reason you are on Dee's "kill list"
is because
of *your* behavior here. IMHO, Dee simply got tired of your name-
calling, various
forms of insult, and factual errors. She can correct me if I'm wrong -
but I don't think I am.

*We might have had a
* *real conversation here on this.

Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation"
would
only last until Dee disagreed with you. It's a safe bet that at the
first real
challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama
Dee"),
and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.

*But, no, I have been
* *categorized as "inferior" or "unworthy" or, as one
* *put it in the past, "just horrid!" * :-)

There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.

--

Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.

Jim, N2EY

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:35:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:35:02 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm

On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
"Bob Brock" writes:
In response to "Dee Flint" :
snip
Poor Heil doesn't
realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
must be fought!
You're a selective reader, "Leo". Good old Mr. Wilson, er Len saw my
post about Tandy/Radio Shack gobbling up Allied electronics and had to
attempt to dazzle me with his expertise. A lengthy treatise including
his having been around when Allied came into existence followed.
I'd tend to agree, "Dave", if this was an isolated post that was
hijacked by mean 'ol Len.

Silly ol' Len leapt in with keyboard blazing. Silly ol' Len needed to
exhibit his expertise on matters dealing with Allied Electronics. The
only problem he had is that was short on information.

That was of paramount importance - many future generations of usenet
Googlers will pay homage to you for pointing that out to all with such
elegance and aplomb!

It seemed important enough for him to post his usual insulting crap,
"Leo". I'm sure that future generations will learn a great deal about
amateur radio from the misinformation and disinformation put forth by
Leonard H. Anderson.

Hear, hear!

By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.

"We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)

There are other readers of the newsgroup who don't know you to be Leo,
"Leo". I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
at and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
anonymously.

It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
behavior, "Leo".

You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
posts!

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I'll bet you don't!

Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
He sure is!
Not.

Whatever you think, "Daves"!

It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:37:28 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:35:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:35:02 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm

On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
"Bob Brock" writes:
In response to "Dee Flint" :
snip
Poor Heil doesn't
realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
must be fought!
You're a selective reader, "Leo". Good old Mr. Wilson, er Len saw my
post about Tandy/Radio Shack gobbling up Allied electronics and had to
attempt to dazzle me with his expertise. A lengthy treatise including
his having been around when Allied came into existence followed.
I'd tend to agree, "Dave", if this was an isolated post that was
hijacked by mean 'ol Len.

Silly ol' Len leapt in with keyboard blazing. Silly ol' Len needed to
exhibit his expertise on matters dealing with Allied Electronics. The
only problem he had is that was short on information.

That was of paramount importance - many future generations of usenet
Googlers will pay homage to you for pointing that out to all with such
elegance and aplomb!

It seemed important enough for him to post his usual insulting crap,
"Leo". I'm sure that future generations will learn a great deal about
amateur radio from the misinformation and disinformation put forth by
Leonard H. Anderson.

Hear, hear!

By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.

"We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)

There are other readers of the newsgroup who don't know you to be Leo,
"Leo".

Kind of you to step up and speak for them all, "Daves".

I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
at and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
anonymously.

Odd that you would consider this interchange "sniping" - if I agreed
with you, would it become a "conversation"? Sure would!

And no, the definition of anonymous is "having no known name " -
mine's Leo! Whether you believe that or not is completely irrelevant
to me.

Should I prefer to communicate with K8MN, I would use the ham bands to
do so (where your callsign, and mine, are both relevant and required
by law). But you're not there - you're here! Usenet ain't radio, OM.


It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
behavior, "Leo".

You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
posts!

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!

Now there's a pattern if I ever saw one.......


I'll bet you don't!

Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
He sure is!
Not.

Whatever you think, "Daves"!

It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".

Whatever you say, "Daves" - you're obviously in complete control!


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...

[snip]


It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so
to speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site
is one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We
have 2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham
per thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just
aren't a lot of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a
part of their leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to
stay at the current level. It would not surprise me if our numbers
dropped in half over the next decade or so before leveling out.

You could be right. However, there wouldn't be anything wrong with
looking at the potential base of good people who could be interested in
ham radio and trying to figure out what aspects might motivate them in
joining in the hobby. Well, except that we are in the wrong ng to do that
right here and would need to start another thread in the appropriate ng
instead. I guess I'm questioning whether we should recruit hard or
recruit smart? Perhaps both wouldn't hurt anything.


What we need to do is recruit OUTSIDE the newsgroups and let people know
that it exists and what they can do with it. People in the amateur radio
newsgroups are either already licensed or know something about ham radio.
It's the people who know little to nothing about it that we need to get the
word to so that they can decide if this is an activity that they want to get
involved in.

However, to be honest with you and the others here, I've got a crisis
going on here right now. My wife had a brain tumor removed a little over
a week ago and we just found out tonight that the tumor was malignant.
She lost use of her left arm and leg during the operation and will require
radiation therapy after the physical therapy. I'll leave it up to those
who are already here to decide among yourselves if a discussion of the
potential base and what motivates them would be beneficial in the
appropriate ng or not.


Good luck and best wishes.

Hey, it's better than holding on to old vendettas and it could give
everyone a chance to provide some thoughtful input since it should be
pretty non controversial. Give it a thought and do what you will. I'll
post as time permits, but things are going to get really busy here for the
next few months. I was wanting to study and take the General exam, but
that too will take a back burner right now.


Yup, family comes first.

Dee, N8UZE

On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote:

On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "
wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:
snip

Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.

*tsk*. Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.

Poor guy. Just can't help himself!


Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Feb 1, 5:01�pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

From: on 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800


Agreed.

Agreed to what?

Which standards should be changed?

Which standard should never be changed?


What would you have them do that is not being done now?

Why do you ask?


Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?

Why do you ask?

Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.

Why is that important?

Are you a farmer out-standing in his field?

Did you get a crop subsidy? Did you consider yourself
as growing something? Is that why you spread so much
fertilizer around?


The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.

Why do you care?

Do you have stock in the ARRL?

Do you have any ARRL publications?

Why should we care whether or not you do?


And how should it change?

How should what change?

Why can't you describe your question?


What would constitute "REAL leadership"?

Why do you consider the ARRL as "leaders?"

Why does the ARRL consider themselves as the
"leaders?"

Who was it that led the fight against BPL?

Did you not read the Comments on BPL at the
FCC website?

Why do you think ONLY ARRL 'fights against it?'

Why haven't you engaged your browser to look
around more?

Have you ever been engaged?

Have you ever browsed the singles groups?


Which changes?

What are you talking about?

Do you ever change your underwear?

Haven't you ever changed your mind?


I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
articles aimed at Technicians.

Why aren't more Techs members of the ARRL?

Don't you realize that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined?

Why hasn't the ARRL gotten more than a quarter of
all amateur radio licensees as members?


Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?

Are you still up the creek and out of the main stream?

What should the standards be?

Shouldn't you ask NIST that?


US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
of the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
resources of adults.

Is that why ARRL is always asking for some kind of donation?


You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.

Why do you think all postings are made direct to you?


Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
causation.

Why haven't you cleaned up the static in your postings?

Have you cleaned up the static on your radio?


We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
all but disappeared.

Do you have your finger on the pulse of all radio-interested?

Are you A. C. Nielson? Or are you Leslie Nielson?

Are we to take your words as TRVTH engraved on a building?

Why can't we take your words as in a comic strip, "BC?"


Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
growth in US amateur radio.

Why can't you take the fact that so many just aren't
interested in morse code?

Why can't you understand that newcomers coming in via
no-code Tech classes are not quite able to keep up with
old coded hams who are dying off?


Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:

Why do you say YOUR advice is "mine?"

Why do you act like only YOU are supreme judge of all?

Where is it written that only YOU know what is best?


Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
changes?

Is this an old folk homily? Is it an aphorism? Isn't it
more of your own apocryphal buzz-word-ism?

Why can't you accept FCC 06-178 with good grace.

Or do you always say "Good night grace?"


Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
needed, why should it be supported?

Why do you NOT understand what the FCC wrote in 06-178?

Why are you in such denial?

Have you sought psychologic help for your denial problem?

Have you gotten laid yet?

Do you floss after every meal?


Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation" would
only last until Dee disagreed with you.

Why do you call me by a familiar name? Why do you think
you have been authorized to do so?

Why do you continue the facade of seeing the future?

Are you a fake fortune teller? Do you read palms?

Have you ever run your hands along a woman's hand?

Have you ever held a conversation where you didn't try
to correct someone constantly?

Why do you think real conversations always involve you
asking questions?

It's a safe bet that at the first real
challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama Dee"),
and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.

Why do you want to chastize others for things that have
not yet happened?

Why are you always making up stories about the future?

Do you have facts from the future?

Why do you consider yourself the ultimate authority?

Why are you imagining things?

There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.

What is "all about me?"

Why do all your posts put you on the ultimate authority
throne?

Haven't you heard of Ex-Lax?

Have you ever had an endoscopy procedure?

Haven't you ever considered that others consider
your attitude as ****ty?


Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely, or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.

Why are you acting like a boss? Were you born in Red Bank, NJ?

Why must all answer your questions?

Are you Alex Trebek in drag?

Are you in or have you ever been in jeopardy?

Why do you always answer with other questions?

Why are you so irritable? Have you considered tranquilizers?

Haven't you gotten laid yet?

-30-

On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

73, Leo

wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:01�pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?
I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. �Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. �Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

"Leo" is a one-way street.

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:44:10 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
. ..

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...

[snip]


It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so
to speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site
is one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We
have 2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham
per thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just
aren't a lot of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a
part of their leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to
stay at the current level. It would not surprise me if our numbers
dropped in half over the next decade or so before leveling out.

You could be right. However, there wouldn't be anything wrong with
looking at the potential base of good people who could be interested in
ham radio and trying to figure out what aspects might motivate them in
joining in the hobby. Well, except that we are in the wrong ng to do that
right here and would need to start another thread in the appropriate ng
instead. I guess I'm questioning whether we should recruit hard or
recruit smart? Perhaps both wouldn't hurt anything.


What we need to do is recruit OUTSIDE the newsgroups and let people know
that it exists and what they can do with it. People in the amateur radio
newsgroups are either already licensed or know something about ham radio.
It's the people who know little to nothing about it that we need to get the
word to so that they can decide if this is an activity that they want to get
involved in.

If you guys want to sit here and say that there is no reason for hams
to discuss methods to recruit new hams here because the only people on
the newsgroups are the ones who recruit new hams, go ahead. I can't
make you. However, don't bemoan the lack of growth among the ranks.

What word is it that you want to get out? That you can talk to people
in foreign lands? That it is a good hobby for older people who are
shut in to be able to talk to new friends? That you can use it for
reliable communications with family and friends? How about the public
service aspects such as SKYWARN and ARIES? This is just a quick list
of things that I can think of because, as I already said, time is kind
of short for me right now and I think that brainstorming is a much
better method. That's why I suggested it.

What are the competitors to ham radio? GMRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
CB, etc.? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
each of these? Why would ham radio be a better choice.

Then you could discuss market demographics. What kind of people might
be interested in ham radio? How about hunters and fishermen who may
want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? Perhaps
people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
out in the field? How about emergency communications like being able
to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
car is broke down? This list too could be a lot longer.

Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
kinds of media do these people read? I can tell you right now, it's
not ham specific magazines such as QST. Ideas that come to mind,
based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
list servers that cater to their needs. Magazines that sell to
homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth. All kinds
of hunting and fishing magazines out there. There are a lot of media
outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
income. You could also look at organizations publications of specific
groups. This list too is abbreviated.

Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. The code
barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
time.

Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. People who
otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
that would meet a need. It's not only a good chance to promote ham
radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
little money from it. There are many here with excellent writing
skills who are capable of doing it.

The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
saturated and growth is impossible. To that, I say that marketing is
everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
towards those already in ham radio. It's a policy that I disagree
with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
alone as soon as time permits. However, that may be after the current
widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
passed and that would be truly unfortunate.