[Boatanchors] May QST...Devoted Entirely To Amateur Radio ADVERTISEORS

[Jim Brannigan]

> It's a nice place to visit from time to time because they receive QST 
> magazine every month, & I like to review each issue as it comes out...sure 
> enough, they had the May 2006 copy on the shelf...

As someone else noted, your subscription would help pay the bills and show 
support.

> But what an absolute shock as I leafed through it! Was it my imagination, 
> or is almost the entire second half of the magazine this month "...Devoted 
> Entirely To Amateur Radio ADVERTISERS"...?! Page after page consisted of 
> NOTHING but full-page, colour pitches from different manufacturers --- no 
> continuations from previous articles in between...no nothing!

There was a very interesting article comparing sound cards, did you miss it?

>
> I could hardly believe my eyes.
>
> Reading earlier pages, I saw that the write-up on the results of the 
> November Sweepstakes contest was, well, hardly a write-up at all --- any 
> curious non-contestor Newbie scanning the summary would probably be left 
> wondering what all the fuss about this contesting stuff was about: there 
> wasn't much of anything there to entice the newcomer to wade in --- heck, 
> there wasn't even enough there to entice any repeat efforts on the part of 
> existing contestors!
>
> Just where were the complete score summaries, anyway...? No doubt off 
> tucked away in some web site someplace (or perhaps available by way of a 
> paid subscription to The National Contest Journal), but they SHOULD be 
> included in QST, the way they were since the magazine first started. 
> Period.

The contest scores were moved to the FREE ARRL WEB site about two years ago. 
Yes, I miss seeing my 100 or so SS QSO's in QST, but I understand their 
rational for saving the magazine space.

> I know a lot of guys will take this opportunity & accuse me of League 
> bashing, etc., but come on, fellas: what's happened to my once beloved QST 
> magazine? I have nearly every issue going all the way back to 1916, but 
> this latest "offering" is hardly worth the effort.
>
> Surely Hams deserve better than this.

Yes we do, but it is not 1916 or 1955 or 1975 anymore.  The times they are a 
change'n

Jim