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??


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.


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 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. We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers. Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously. Not my problem. His e-mail address is
.


- mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

From: "K4YZ" on May 11, 10:15 am

wrote [in response to W3RV]:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "embarrasment" at all...to me.
I've been a working PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics
since 1952, passed a First 'Phone test in 1956, been
co-owner of a business radio in what is now called
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, and have legally
OPERATED on many MORE parts of the EM spectrum than
is permitted to just amateur radio licensees.

However, Robeson's post is just more of the puerile
junior-high school babbling by the Avenging Angle of
Dearth, Stebie Robeson, off on another tangent
of hatred, trying to mouth-off more abuse. Tsk.
It does indicate that the mindset of some amateur
extras hasn't gone much beyond age 13 1/2.

At question is NUMBER DATA on/from ARRL and the
DATE of such numbers. Kelly contends that an
8 1/2 year period is inconsequential to the
discussion. Coslo disagrees with that. I disagree
with Kelly's contention. Robeson can only jeer and
heckle the participants in that discussion, not
being able to think while in the midst of his
unstable emotional volatility.

Kelly thinks that the ARRL is "going along
swimingly," no problems there, everything just
fine.

Not the case in reality. Brakob realizes that and
so does Coslo. Note the statements on the
www.hamdata.com webpage in regards to statistics:
TECHNICIAN class license totals have been
increasing at a rate of 26 per day! [that's about
four times faster than the combined General and
Extra class increases of 6 per day]

On the license class totals, it is interesting to
compare (via Hamdata) those of 11 May 05 versus
those of two years prior:

2005 2003
Both Tech Classes - 350,566 348,749
All four others - 373,171 378,994
Total, all classes - 723,737 727,743

Percentage of Techs - 48.44 47.92

Comparison of Growth, 2005 v. 2003

Gain or Loss, Techs - +1,817
Gain or Loss, other four - -5,823

Gain or Loss, all licensees -4,006

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

The increase in both Technician classes is not
"dramatic" but it IS an increase and has NOT
stopped as some amateur extras claimed "would
happen" after the 12-year elapse from the 1991
creation of the (no-code-test) Technician class.
At 48.44 percent of ALL current licensees, that
IS a very large percentage and is constantly
approaching a MAJORITY (it hasn't stopped
increasing in 14 years).

It should be obvious (but is not to some closed
mindsets) that the "other four" classes (Novice,
General, Advanced, Extra) have had their totals
DROP in numbers. The "other four" all require
morse code testing. The no-longer-issued-new
Novice and Advanced classes dropped by 11,649 but
the General and Extra classes gained only 5,826.
The net change in the "other four" is -5,823.
The two-year growth in both Technician classes
is NOT enough to stem the 4,006 loss in licenses
overall in two years.

The (no-code-test) Technician class licensee is
FORBIDDEN to operate below 30 MHz. A Technician
Plus licensee is permitted below 30 MHz only if
they have taken a morse code test. Old paradigms
of "the majority of hams work in the HF bands" is
rapidly approaching oblivion. The "World Above
50 MHz" may soon be the majority-use spectrum in
amateur radio. The ARRL may not be tuned in to
that band...

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

Sweetums you old dear why don't *you* get off your butt and chase down
more current data than I've been able to come up with. Then maybe you'd
be able to rub it in my face when it turns out that your newer by-class
ratios are "dramatically different" from the 8.5 year old data I
posted.

.. . . nah, you don't have the gonads . .


And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Look at the bright side Steve, with Sweetums on the outside looking in
we have less spectrum pollution to deal with.


Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

From: on 11 May 2005 15:53:34 -0700

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

Sweetums you old dear why don't *you* get off your butt and chase down

more current data than I've been able to come up with. Then maybe
you'd
be able to rub it in my face when it turns out that your newer
by-class
ratios are "dramatically different" from the 8.5 year old data I
posted.

Thank you, senior, but I'd prefer to get data direct
from the FCC...even if it has to be through Hamdata.
It is daily, it is honest, it isn't "massaged."

...and quit coming on to me with those endearing
terms like "sweetums." I'm straight. :-)


. . . nah, you don't have the gonads . .

"Gonads?" :-)

Kellie equates sex with Sumner?!? :-)

Kellie doesn't have the GUTS to admit he might have
made a mistake, "screwing around" with things he
apparently can't handle. :-)

Tsk. Kellie is looking for "love" in all the wrong
places...

[practice safe eating - use condiments...]



Look at the bright side Steve, with Sweetums on the outside looking in

we have less spectrum pollution to deal with.

Good grief, Kellie, you two already create more
POLLUTION than any one government agency can
control! :-)

You really CAN'T bother to consider the hobby for
anyone else but yourself, can you?

Hmmmm...a matched pair, those two...role-models for the
U.S. amateur extra class.

Say "Hi" to Dave S. next meeting you attend in the
"Residence Radio Club" he is the trustee for...

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 -

ARRL Idiots wrote:
ARRL blunders have added up over the years, and many
ARRL blunders were the result of their superior-than-thou
attitude toward their members. It is no surprise the
pigeons are now coming home to roost.


One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.




And your source for this information is?

ARRL blunders have added up over the years, and many
ARRL blunders were the result of their superior-than-thou
attitude toward their members. It is no surprise the
pigeons are now coming home to roost.


One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:44:02 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

And your source for this information is?

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's Pacific Division committee
that looked into this. The problem was that CERTAIN Pacific Section
(Hawaii) members wanted their issues sent either by first-class mail
from the ststeside printing plant or alternatively bulk-mail from
the same source. In either case, they did not want to pay the
additional costs. "Pennies" it wasn't. By that time most magazines
were being printed on the Island but the very small circulation of
QST there didn't make that economical either. Bulk mail would have
required additonal sorting in Honolulu which was an additional
charge over and above the shipment.

The best recommendation was the bulk shipment with the members
paying the "offshore" rate to cover the additonal cost. This didn't
sit too well, and lots of "Hawaii IS in the United States" shouts
were heard. In the end, the members affected were given the choice
of status quo (surface mail at "basic" rate) or first-class airmail
delivery paying the extra charge. Some picked one, others picked
the other. Still others used that as an excuse to not pay ARRL dues
but still benefit from the regulatory work that the League did and
still does on behalf of all radio amateurs, members or not.

Case closed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:44:02 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

And your source for this information is?

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's Pacific Division committee
that looked into this. The problem was that CERTAIN Pacific Section
(Hawaii) members wanted their issues sent either by first-class mail
from the ststeside printing plant or alternatively bulk-mail from
the same source. In either case, they did not want to pay the
additional costs. "Pennies" it wasn't. By that time most magazines
were being printed on the Island but the very small circulation of
QST there didn't make that economical either. Bulk mail would have
required additonal sorting in Honolulu which was an additional
charge over and above the shipment.

The best recommendation was the bulk shipment with the members
paying the "offshore" rate to cover the additonal cost. This didn't
sit too well, and lots of "Hawaii IS in the United States" shouts
were heard. In the end, the members affected were given the choice
of status quo (surface mail at "basic" rate) or first-class airmail
delivery paying the extra charge. Some picked one, others picked
the other. Still others used that as an excuse to not pay ARRL dues
but still benefit from the regulatory work that the League did and
still does on behalf of all radio amateurs, members or not.

Case closed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



BULL****! The ARRL did not want to even discuss the
matter. The ARRL's "solution" was to tell individual members
to pay for air mail delivery.

CASE CLOSE (now)

and nobody benefited from any "regulatory" work
more BULL****!

Results speak loudest. The league is an organization which is
rapidly fading into history, due to the very attitude you display
here. Let me spell it out for you:

A R R O G A N C E

CASE CLOSED

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's
//remaining drivel flushed//


You show much aggression.
That is no way to win members for an organization.
A contrite approach would be more effective.



Dr Hambone