wrote in message ...


"Louis C. LeVine" wrote:

This came from another radio group. They are doing a survey to find
out why some people do not like the ARRL. I don't like it because it
costs to much. If it were $10 a year I might consider joining.
Louis

I neither approve of or disapprove of the ARRL.

Yes, the dews are high. If they where lower they could attract more
potential members. With the majority of hams being senior citizens, the
ARRL needs to take that into consideration when it comes to dews. WE all
know that seniors are on a fixed income. Members should be given a
choice of what magazine they would like when joining the ARRL.

I showed a copy of QST to a new ham friend and ash him if he was
interested. His comment after looking over the magazine was: The
magazine is to technical for him and most likely other new hams, the
cost for membership is to high.

For me, the ARRL reminds me of the Federal Government. We elect the
officials who are supposed to be working for the membership, but they do
as they darn well please once they are in office. Who is in bed with
whom.

I dropped my membership for the reasons I have stated above.

A choice of magazines? Explain please.

Its a bureaucracy. And according to Doctor Peters, who wrote a book called
'Peters principle' many years ago:

"In a bureaucracy everyone will eventually arise to their level of
incompetence"

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message

Its a bureaucracy. And according to Doctor Peters, who wrote a book
called
'Peters principle' many years ago:

I believe you meant the "Peter principal" named after the author Peter F.
Drucker.
He was a management guru!

"Roger Gt" wrote


I believe you meant the "Peter principal" named after the author Peter F.
Drucker. He was a management guru!

No, he meant the "The Peter Priciple", from the book by that title written
by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull.

Peter Drucker had nothing to do with it.

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Thanks, I couldn't see a connection with Drucker!
So it is spelled "Priciple"? That would explain why I didn't find it!

This one?
-------------------------------
About the Author
Before Dr. Laurence Peter's death in 1988, he was a professor of education
at the University of Southern California and at the University of British
Columbia.
Raymond Hull lives in British Columbia.

This best-selling business classic of more than twenty-five years' duration
is a dead-on account of why boredom, bungling, and bad management are built
into every organization. Through hilarious case histories and cartoons
adapted from Punch, Dr. Peter shows how America's corporate career track
drives employees relentlessly upward -- until they get promoted into jobs
they just can't do and wind up desperately treading water, driving their
colleagues crazy, and dragging down productivity and profit.

-------------------------------

73 OM DE K7DUP



"KØHB" wrote in message n
"Roger Gt" wrote
I believe you meant the "Peter principal" named after the author Peter
F.
Drucker. He was a management guru!

No, he meant the "The Peter Priciple", from the book by that title written
by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull.

Peter Drucker had nothing to do with it.
Good luck on this one now!
73, de Hans, K0HB

Its a bureaucracy. And according to Doctor Peters, who wrote a book called
'Peters principle' many years ago:

"In a bureaucracy everyone will eventually arise to their level of
incompetence"



That "incompetence" is more usually a lack of sufficient office politics
skills than
technical skills. "Dilbert" is on target more often than you would
believe if you
never had to work for a large corporation. AT&T was the worst with this.
There you worked on stuff not because there was a chance that it might
make the
company any money, but because your boss thinks it will impress his
boss. Other
instances are when your department didn't spend all its allocated budget
for the
year, so the boss has people order equipment that might be useful in the
future.
Known as "Use it or lose it", as next year's budget would likely be
scaled back if
this year's isn't fully spent.

I have run across incompetent people in companies I've worked for, but it's
actually quite rare. One guy who didn't know what he was doing just
tried to
wing it. And his work was very faulty. But by far most incompetence is
found in management.