----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Trayner" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
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
|
