From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: QST, in my opinion...
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:03:08 EDT

flloyd@L1-A.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE]) writes:

Alright.  Most of this article was kind silly and whining, but I was more
than willing to pass it over until it struck a hot button:

>QST has, shall we say, a _special_ requirement for all advertisers.
>QST, unlike all other amateur radio related publications, requires that
>advertisers be willing to submit samples of their product to ARRL for
>evaluation as to fitness for service.  In other words, a company selling
>"Antenna Wax" is not likely to get advertising space.  Is this good?  Well,
>yes and no.  For one thing, the ARRL is suppressing free trade, freedom of
>the press and free speech by denying these advertisers.

BUZZ!  Wrong, but thanks for playing.

First of all, QST *has* advertised Antenna Wax :-).  Second of all, to turn
the famous phrase on its side, the ARRL owns the press, so they have the
freedom[1].  The ARRL is doing absolutely NOTHING to prevent you from
buying from shady advertisers (or those too stingy to let the ARRL have a
freeby), and absolutely NOTHING to prevent these advertisers from conveying
their message to you -- all these advertisers have to do is buy a tape from
the FCC and they've got your address.  (Though it would probably be cheaper
to buy a box of mailing labels from Buckmaster Publishing).  The ARRL is under
absolutely NO obligation to run their advertisements in QST, however, no more
so than you are obligated to hold Klan rallies in your living room.  If it
really bugs you that you can't read snake-oil advertisments in QST, there's
several other electronics mags (and a few all-advertisement electronics mags
as well) which ought to supply more than your Recommended Daily Allowance of
snake oil.  Me, I fully support the ARRL's right to enhance the value of their
product (advertising space) by attempting to increase slightly the average
quality of products advertised.

Now, as long as I've got the editor open:

>League Membership
>When the ARRL puts its support behind or against a political issue, they
>will always quote the will of its membership as its guiding principal.
>In other words, they act as if we all had voted on the issues it
>addresses.  Well, unfortunately, the "voice" that the ARRL hears is often
>the "squeaky wheel", which as always gets the most grease. 

Have *you* ever bothered writing a letter?  *I* have, and I wasn't even
particularly mad!

>I've never met a section manager or district chief, and don't even know
>who my local representatives are.

How can you say there aren't any of your favorite snake oil advertisements in
QST if you can't even find the names and addresses of all the ARRL section
managers which are printed in EACH AND EVERY ISSUE OF QST?

>If the ARRL wanted a truly representative vote on what really
>matters to their constituency, then they should spend about $1 per
>member to send out Business-Reply-Mail, postage prepaid, check-the-box
>bingo cards to each of the members soliciting their votes.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!  If you think a 1% letter-writing rate
is low, you've obviously never TRIED the above scheme.

>And finally, the name QST is the epitome of hobby-jargonism.
>While the ARRL is considering changing their name, why not give
>the magazine a work over too?  How about something like "The Journal
>of the Axxx", whatever Axxx eventually turns out to be?

A[AR]RL will just be another meaningless acronym to the general public.
Clearly, the name of the magazine needs to be something like

	Journal of the American Amateur Radio League, You Know,
	Those Radio Geeks Who Waste Valuable TV-Watching Time To
	Go Play With Radios When Everyone Knows That If There
	Weren't This Keen Music Video On Right Now You Could Use
	The Telephone To Contact Anyone's Answering Machine Anywhere
	In The World, As If That Would Do Any Good, Since They're
	Playing Super-Mario-Brothers And Can't Be Disturbed Until
	They Die of Starvation.

Of course, having to use microfilm for the front-cover photograph might drive
up the cost of the magazine a little.

[1] "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses."  A phrase
sometimes used to denigrate the idea of freedom of the press by those who've
forgotten that in the US, unlike much of the world, owning a press is *not*
good for a long prison term or a short trip to a firing squad...