[1000mp] QST Product Review

[Charles Harpole]

Thanks, Ed, for your attention to my complaint about recent QST product 
reviews.  I have issued one complaint before, that time abt the ICOM PROII.

I have two basic complaints, all within the last two or three years which I 
have seen these developments, and I have read every QST issue since becoming 
a member in 1957:

1.  The recent product reviews do not spell out for the low-tech reader the 
implications of the negative results of the tests... expecially, in the 
realm of splatter producers... I believe, if the radio puts out splatter, 
the text should say so in very clear terms (not," may produce splatter") and 
explain how and why so that the low-tech among us (an every increasing 
number, I think) will CLEARLY and definitively know the implications of the 
negative findings (as well as the positive ones, now so well trumpeted).

2.  The writing style of recent articles, including the product reviews, has 
adopted the "happy talk" style of local "news" tv broadcasters.  The happy 
chat in QST is now so thick, I wonder if the writers/editors think their 
readers are 8 year olds.  It just wastes space and insults the reader with 
innane drivil instead of solid information.  If you want more about this 
item, let me know; I have lots to say on it.

Thanks for listening, 73, K4VUD

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.