>On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:45:24 -0600, "Dan Gannon, WA5ANF"
><dpgsrg@hti.net> wrote:
>
>>Sandy Meltzer wrote:
>>
>>It is so sad to see shameless, blatant, and purly commercial SPAM on
>>this list.
>>Please, don't do this again.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>Dan Gannon, WA5ANF
>_______________________________________________________________
>Speak for yourself, Dan. It's list-related, timely and useful. I
>don't mind it a bit. I only wish it had been a couple of months
>earlier -- I could have saved $200 on my 91B!
>
>73, Bill W7TI
>
I semi-agree, Bill. [AMPS] should not be like the non-commercial amateur
radio bands.
- I see fewer trade-offs from advistising on the Internet than I see
with advertising in the amateur radio magazines. On the Internet, we can
click Delete. In the ham magazines, advertisers apparently have a
(eternally-denied) say in the content of articles -- so the only choice
is to delete one's subscription. . . The bottom-line is: Why should we
pay for articles that paid advertisers partly-control?
In my opinion, *Consumer's Reports* magazine has the right idea. Paid
advertising and articles relating to any of the products that are
advertised, are not compatible.
Rich---
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|