"mike.dennison" wrote:
ZL2CA wrote:
> I do not agree with your glossing over error-rate in articles:
> Editorial errors give the publisher a bad image with knowledgeable
readers.
> Getting it right the first time takes a lot of beating.
I agree entirely that 100% accuracy should always be the aim, and I believe
that RadCom and QST both have a high hit rate, but the point I was making
was that a story with some errors in it will still do more good for the LF
fraternity than no story at all.
Where did you get that idea from??? So misleading and wrong information
is
better than no information at all !!!!!!!!!!!! What a lot of rubbish. Is
it any
wonder that less than half the UK licensed radio amateurs are not
members of
the RSGB with an attitude like that. Representatives of societies must
act
responsibly and show leadership at all times.
G3KEV
37
Moke, X3GDV
| 