From: pat <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <72715D81C8474C0FA1FAFCCCEDFB170D@IBM7FFA209F07C>
References: <4f50abca.8a0eb40a.64c9.ffff8ddb@mx.google.com>
	 <1330880070.3047.22.camel@g4gvw-high-grade>
	 <72715D81C8474C0FA1FAFCCCEDFB170D@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:27:51 +0000
Message-ID: <1330961271.3296.12.camel@g4gvw-high-grade>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com id q25FR5H5002673
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: RSGB Membership - Bit off topic.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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-global-disposition: G
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:499739552:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m239.1 ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : fail  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40834f54eaf3142d
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Chris,

This is probably not the most appropriate place to continue the
discussion so as my final on this:

A few of the professional bodies do this for retired members who still
retain some privelages and a welcome at Branch meetings etc., get
reduced perks but retain status. This was suggested to the Royal Surrey
Gas Board some years ago but I think it ended up in the "Not Invented
Here" file!


73




On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 10:12 +0000, Chris wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> I tend to agree with you over RSGB membership. A cheaper grade of membe=
rship=20
> might work wonders for an increase in numbers for RSGB - I would certai=
nly=20
> join, even with my reservations over the amount of waste and poor decis=
ion=20
> making in the past. I do not require RadCom anyway, I get given copies =
by=20
> two members! To be honest, the mag is far less inspiring than it used t=
o be=20
> and I hardly bother to read it these days. The fact that I get given ot=
her=20
> peoples copies suggests how little they value them, with many other=20
> publications people save them and are proud of their collection, often=20
> seeking out back issues to complete the set. The lack of a cheaper=20
> membership option, without hard copy of RadCom, suggests to me another=20
> example of poor management and the short sighted approach taken. The Ra=
dCom=20
> advertisements are of less importance now too, I would guess most use t=
he=20
> internet to browse their favourite dealers full catalogue, or more like=
ly=20
> Ebay!
> Vy 73,
> Chris, G4AYT.
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "pat" <g4gvw@aol.com>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: RSGB Membership - Bit off topic.
>=20
>=20
> Jim,
>=20
> Many of us paid dues for years but harder times led to harsh choices.
> Some of the lost and squandered funds might have justifiably been used
> to create a cheaper grade of membership even one with only a reduced
> online journal (though Radcom benefits from advertiser income too). The
> cost of membership roughly equates to the cost of my weekly Park and
> Ride ticket into town! At the moment my choice is Linux Format at a
> similar monthly cost - and I seem to be paying for more articles I can
> use, a CD and very few adverts. It's all relative.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 11:16 +0000, James Cowburn wrote:
> > Points taken and well made!  I am a fully paid up member as I quite e=
njoy
> > Radcom and the cost isn=C2=92t much different than other radio mags. =
 Didn=C2=92t=20
> > know
> > they'd sold the tower, that was a result and I did know Bletchely had=
=20
> > opened
> > (eventually, but they have had other pressing issues to fend off!)
> >
> > I shall retract my harsh comments in this case!  :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sergean=
t
> > Sent: 02 March 2012 10:52
> > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
> > Subject: LF: Re: RSGB Membership - Bit off topic.
> >
> > A bit harsh Jim. The tower was sold a year ago at what it was bought
> > for. Bletchley opened last weekend and is budgeted for, admittedly a
> > bit over initial budgets.
> >
> > Remember if it weren't for the RSGB we certainly wouldn't have any of
> > our current LF allocations. Several members of the society (one of
> > which is now on the interim board) were the key players in negotiatio=
ns
> > on this with IARU.
> >
> > And nobody else has commented, RSGB subs are =C2=A347 with direct deb=
it.
> > Fairly similar to other organisations of similar size.
> >
> > 73 Dave G3YMC
> >
> > On 2 Mar 2012 at 10:39, James Cowburn wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect any incremental cost in my membership due to "non-member
> > > support" is minimal!  Most will be going on undoing the current fis=
cal
> > > mess the society is in, sorting out Bletchley and trying to sell th=
at
> > > bloody tower they bought!
> > >
> >
> >
> > http://www.davesergeant.com
> >
> >
> >
>=20

--=20
73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK