Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslin(tm) Report 1385 – February 27, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |