[1000mp] QST Product Review

[crll]

I have to agree Charles, k4vud 100%. Stop trying to use fancy writing and
give us the REAL words.

Jason Timmis,
VE7AG, ARRL member

ps This is certainly not MP discussion but 'healthy' enough I like the
deversion FWIW IMHO.

Cheers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Harpole <k4vud@hotmail.com>
To: 1000mp@mailman.qth.net <1000mp@mailman.qth.net>
Date: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [1000mp] QST Product Review


>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