Return-Path: Received: from rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (rly-mb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.118.141]) by air-mb01.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILINMB14-ef4723830723a; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:27:33 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mb05.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMB59-ef4723830723a; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:27:20 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1IlqN6-0002NE-Rc for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:26:56 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IlqN6-0002N5-Az for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:26:56 +0100 Received: from smtpout0141.sc1.he.tucows.com ([64.97.136.141] helo=n082.sc1.he.tucows.com) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IlqN3-00044K-8X for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:26:56 +0100 Received: from g3kev (62.252.228.2) by n082.sc1.he.tucows.com (7.2.069.1) id 47030A3E001D29FE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:26:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c818c6$ec8c0650$27e4fc3e@g3kev> From: "hamilton mal" To: References: <8E8D23D235D70840B6582917DF27898006935B1D@temps153538.tms-ltd.com> <47225F4C.1050105@telia.com> <731EB49F88B309428FFDDD2423F810E41A88BC@HERMES4.ds.leeds.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:20:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.448 Subject: Re: LF: RADCOM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Trayner" To: Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 2:57 PM Subject: RE: LF: RADCOM Dear Johan, Thank you for your email. > "Radcomic" is becoming too much of an advertisment orgy! ... I don't want to pay for these ad's anymore... Forgive me for pointing it out, but you're not paying for the ads. Magazines take paid advertising to make money, not to subsidise the advertisers. They wouldn't be willing to sell the advertising space unless it paid for the extra pages plus the extra postage plus a bit of profit. I think you'd find these magazines would be quite a bit more expensive without the ads. Not true because without the adverts there would only be 14 pages to print and the cost would be minimal, currently with the revenue from adverts Radcom should be free. Some one has already pointed out that Amateur radio is behind us, and has very little future because of the internet, mobile phones and pmr licence free devices on 446 mhz. plus CB. Except you were a radio amateur at least 50 years ago you would not be aware of the drastic changes that have taken place over this period. Amateur radio does not exist anymore it is all APPLIANCE operators now, the majority could not mend a fuse, never mind change a plug on coax cable. The exam criteria has taken such a dive, multiple choice and the answer is in front of you. I speak from experience having started building with valves/tubes and still going strong with the lastest IC'S, Fets etc. I do not suppose most will know what I am talking about, today the black box is returned to the source if a plug falls off. For 500 khz the majority that might be intererested will never get started because they cannot solder and never heard of CW. de G3KEV > Some ad's disguised as "reviews" are sometimes really disturbing: 99% positive comments and then "Thanks to company XYZ for the loan of the plastic gadget..". This is a more serious point. Magazines with a strong sense of purpose will print honest reviews; others will only print the good points because they don't want to alienate their advertisers. I get the impression that the Peter Hart reviews are fairly independent. Others are less so: I remember a review of a book that the RSGB markets, which said that it was superb, wonderful, the best thing since sliced bread. Having read the book I knew it to be well worth reading despite far too many faults which the book editors should have eliminated. This sort of uncritical review loses respect for the magazine. 73, Chris Trayner G4OKW