Return-Path: Received: from rly-me08.mx.aol.com (rly-me08.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.42]) by air-me09.mail.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILINME091-9d2487e5c581ea; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:39:08 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me08.mx.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME086-9d2487e5c581ea; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:38:51 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1KJDlg-0007Kb-LE for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:38:32 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1KJDlf-0007KS-Vv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:38:32 +0100 Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.204]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KJDld-0006Ks-E4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:38:31 +0100 Received: from GandalfG8@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id l.c0e.370c4fbd (42808) for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:38:18 -0400 (EDT) From: GandalfG8@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:38:17 EDT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5035 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.710,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: Re: LF: satellites Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1216240697" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, NO_REAL_NAME 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 : n X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : + -------------------------------1216240697 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 16/07/2008 21:07:05 GMT Daylight Time, jwgould@iee.org writes: I've not got an axe to grind re RadCom, but is the lack of major construction projects in RadCom more to do with there being less people doing the larger scale design/construction projects as well as being motivated to write it up for RadCom? ---------------------- The use of internet groups to encourage cooperative design, both hardware and software, has led to a real time project structure that doesn't necessarily lend itself to the monthly magazine publishing schedule. This of course does not only affect RadCom but, unfortunately, RadCom as a serious technical publication started to lose credibility when a recent past editor attempted to turn it into something more akin to Women's Weekly, with his requesting accounts of radio amateur romances on one occasion, whilst dwelling more on his own interviews with radio "personalities" than matters radio, which it would seem he didn't really understand. Whilst I don't suppose many tears were shed at his departure it doesn't seem to me the RSGB has done the reputation of RadCom any more favours by employing Elaine Richards in a similar position. Especially when one considers that not very long ago she was suggesting through the pages of her radio comic that reports on any form of radio activity, legal or otherwise, would be welcomed. If RadCom is taken to be the "shop window" for the RSGB in general, then perhaps it's time to ask what it is they think they're offering us for our money. For RadCom to be seriously considered as a technical publication again it will be necessary to leave editorial control with those who have real technical ability and not just scrape the barrel for anyone with prior magazine experience. regards Nigel GM8PZR -------------------------------1216240697 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 16/07/2008 21:07:05 GMT Daylight Time, jwgould@iee.o= rg=20 writes:
I'= ve not got an axe to grind re RadCom,=20 but is the lack of major construction projects in RadCom mo= re=20 to do with there being less people doing the larger=20 scale design/construction projects as well as being motivated to= =20 write it up for RadCom? 
----------------------
 
The use of internet groups to encourage cooperative design, both hardwa= re=20 and software, has led to a real time project structure that=20 doesn't necessarily lend itself to the monthly magazine publishing=20 schedule.
 
This of course does not only affect RadCom but, unfortunately, Rad= Com=20 as a serious technical publication started to lose credibility when a recent= =20 past editor attempted to turn it into something more akin to Women's=20 Weekly, with his requesting accounts of radio amateur romances on one=20 occasion, whilst dwelling more on his own interviews with radio=20 "personalities" than matters radio, which it would seem he didn't really=20 understand.
 
Whilst I don't suppose many tears were shed at his departure it doesn't= =20 seem to me the RSGB has done the reputation of RadCom any more favours by=20 employing Elaine Richards in a similar position.
Especially when one considers that not very long ago she was=20 suggesting through the pages of her radio comic that reports on any form of=20 radio activity, legal or otherwise, would be welcomed.
 
If RadCom is taken to be the "shop window" for the RSGB in=20 general, then perhaps it's time to ask what it is they think=20 they're offering us for our money.
 
For RadCom to be seriously considered as a technical publicat= ion=20 again it will be necessary to leave editorial control with those who=20 have real technical ability and not just scrape the barrel=20 for anyone with prior magazine experience.
 
regards
 
Nigel
GM8PZR
-------------------------------1216240697--