Return-Path: Received: from rly-md08.mx.aol.com (rly-md08.mail.aol.com [172.20.29.146]) by air-md10.mail.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILINMD104-91f487e790312e; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:41:23 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-md08.mx.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMD087-91f487e790312e; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:41:10 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1KJFfe-0007cq-Hg for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:40:26 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1KJFfd-0007ch-PR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:40:25 +0100 Received: from imo-m12.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.100] helo=imo-m12.mail.aol.com) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KJFfa-0000mQ-S4 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:40:25 +0100 Received: from GandalfG8@aol.com by imo-m12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id l.c94.352dd052 (30740) for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: GandalfG8@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:40:12 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: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55 Subject: Re: LF: satellites Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1216248012" 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 : + -------------------------------1216248012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 16/07/2008 22:13:58 GMT Daylight Time, alan.melia@btinternet.com writes: Radcom is not the only "Journal" to suffer the attack of the "designers" Electronics World has had the same tacky "make-over" ..... ------------- Hi Alan I was reflecting after posting my comments that perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned individuals by name, but that it would have been difficult to make my point without it being obvious anyway as to whom I was referring. I reflected too on the "demise" experienced by Wireless World or whatever they called it at the the time. I'd comment on great minds thinking alike but, of course, am far too modest for that:-) Joking apart, it was a sadly similar scenario of a once excellent technical publication sinking into insignificance with, yet again, some unfortunate editorial choices. I remember one new editor seeming to take pride in his lack of electronic knowledge but wanting to encourage what he saw as Wireless World's reputation for inciting "controversy". It didn't seem to occur to his limited editorial brain that Wireless World, as was anyway, didn't encourage controversy but rather didn't discourage the free exchange of ideas. As you so rightly point out, WW has sunk to the level of an expensive nothingness. Are we to conclude that RadCom is headed in the same direction? regards Nigel GM8PZR -------------------------------1216248012 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 16/07/2008 22:13:58 GMT Daylight Time,=20 alan.melia@btinternet.com writes:

Radcom=20 is not the only "Journal" to suffer
the attack of the "designers"=20 Electronics World has had the same tacky
"make-over"=20 .....

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

Hi Alan

I was reflecting after posting my comments that perhaps I shouldn't hav= e=20 mentioned individuals by name, but that it would have been difficult to make= my=20 point without it being obvious anyway as to whom I was referring.

I reflected too on the "demise" experienced by Wire= less=20 World or whatever they called it at the the time.

I'd comment on great minds thinking alike but, of course, am far too mo= dest=20 for that:-)

Joking apart, it was a sadly similar scenario of a once excellent techn= ical=20 publication sinking into insignificance with, yet again, some unfortunate=20 editorial choices.

I remember one new editor seeming to take pride in his lack of electron= ic=20 knowledge but wanting to encourage what he saw as Wireless World's reputatio= n=20 for inciting "controversy".

It didn't seem to occur to his limited editorial brain that Wireless Wo= rld,=20 as was anyway, didn't encourage controversy but rather didn't discourage the= =20 free exchange of ideas.

As you so rightly point out, WW has sunk to the level of an expensive=20 nothingness.

Are we to conclude that RadCom is headed in the same direction?

regards

Nigel

GM8PZR

-------------------------------1216248012--