|
Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST.
You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they may carry it and you can read it for free. Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like) CQ QST Monitoring Times These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any bookstores there?? Borders? BDalton? BDK Better check your local book seller your self. Barnes & Noble and Books a Million around here and no QST. NO QST anywhere. CQ always did suck. Pop Comm--ditto--SUCKS. Monitoring Times is kinda OK. 73 & Ham Radio are gone. Guess Mother Earth News it is ;-( |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 4:25:03 -0600, JEP wrote
(in message ) : Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST. You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they may carry it and you can read it for free. Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like) CQ QST Monitoring Times These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any bookstores there?? Borders? BDalton? BDK Better check your local book seller your self. Barnes & Noble and Books a Million around here and no QST. NO QST anywhere. CQ always did suck. Pop Comm--ditto--SUCKS. Monitoring Times is kinda OK. 73 & Ham Radio are gone. Guess Mother Earth News it is ;-( If I were interested in ham radio, I'd have a ham radio license. But I'm a SWL and so I could care less about QST, CQ, 73 and Ham Radio. It's "interesting" to see so many x-posts to r.r.s about ham radio. About 45 years ago I used ta listen to hams and decided that I didn't want to be one nor continue listening to them. Most of my closest friends are hams but they've given up on "converting" me (even when I help them with tech "stuff"). The great majority of hams are nice people and they sure do justify more than their hobby when there's an emergency. But why they think that SWLer's are interested in /their/ hobby still puzzles me. There are times when there are mutual interests. When a ham goes feral and starts broadcasting as a pirate and a felon, this can connect both hobbies and such as that makes me not want to just automatically killfool all the ham newsgroups. But look at this SUBJ: "Why you don't like the ARRL". And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Thanks, Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US |
"Gray Shockley" wrote:
And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Sadly, we don't always have much control over where messages are cross-posted, Gray. Since some Hams are CB'ers and others SWL's, the discussion itself may have actually started in one of those non-ham newsgroups. In other cases, it is trolls (in any one of the newsgroups) trying to belittle Ham radio and it's operators (posted to a number of newsgroups in an effort to get the widest possible audience for that). In still other cases, the discussion started in a ham radio newsgroup, with other newsgroups added by participants who mainly frequent those other newsgroups. Whatever the case, you're certainly not alone - we get our share of messages relating to other topics posted in the Ham radio newsgroups as well. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra. ..... it provides for a structured occupancy of the bands. It's hard NOT to make fun of declarations such as the above!!!!!! Stand At Ease, Gunny! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
|
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: "KØHB" Date: 12/26/03 8:00 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote those who want something for nothing Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old "something for nothing" mantra. Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra. Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. Sure it does, Hans. The present system was set up in such a way as to encourage licensees to pursue a program of self study. The alternatives I have seen here lately suggest that potential new licensees are either idiots for whom we must dilute the test to it's least common denominator, or that we must hang a seriously big carrot out in front to get them to get involved. THAT doesn't stand up in the light of day, Hans. The current licensing strucure has already PROVEN that the tests are reasonable (when the material is sequestered) and that it provides for a structured occupancy of the bands. There was no "ghettos" from Incentive Licensing, Hans. Yes, there were hundreds of disenfranchised Amateurs who were, in fact, cheated out of something they had already been using. That was indeed unfair to say the very least. As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL. 73 Steve, K4YZ Know what would solve a *lot* of discontent with the current licensing system(?)--at least from the perspective of those who think the current system lends itself to "dumbed" down hams; which is absurd by the way, there a loads of dumbed down long-licensed hams. Keep the written exam, nix all CW or alternative mode testing, and increase the license fee to at least that of the GMRS fee of $75.00 (not sure for how long that $75.00 is good for). Kim W5TIT |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. A tiered one does. Was that too difficult for you? Steve, K4YZ Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed from the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days, and that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Yes you did miss it, IMO! What other Morse code pro/con advocacy groups are there? NCI is the one standing around when the change happened, it happened their way, and now all we hear is some people's personal beliefs when they should be at least putting together a plan for the aftermath of the ARS, post Element one. The two I have seen I'm not overwhelmed with. So I will be yapping about what I percieve to be a *grave* error in omission. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, Why the (at least implied) premise that there will be an "aftermath" when Morse testing finally, completely goes away? What sort of doom and gloom scenario are you envisioning? How is this any different than the dire predictions of the end of ham radio when spark gave way to CW, AM to SSB, etc.??? All of these predictions have failed to come to pass ... There IS no "vacuum" to be filled, or anything necessary to "replace," Morse testing when it goes ... it's simply unecessary, so it logically follows that it is not necessary to "find something to replace it." 73, Carl - wk3c |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com