> [Original Message]
> From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@centurytel.net>
> Despite the modern tendency to find a
> conspiracy behind every grassy knoll,
> this was not an anti-contester act.
Despite your tendency to minimize opposing views with sarcasm, I haven't
seen anyone call it an "anti-contester" act.
But a lot of people have called it a "stupid" act and a "not paying
attention to who brought you to the dance" act.
By their own market studies and demographic surveys, ARRL has identified
DXers, contesters, and traffic people as the core of their membership ---
the members most likely to renew, become lifers, and be "ARRL, right or
wrong, my ARRL" style of supporters.
Back in my Navy days, when we needed to "lighten ship" to ride out battle
or weather damage, we were always concerned that we didn't jettison
something we'd need to fight and survive later.
Yet when QST needed to be "lighten ship", amazingly the three groups which
took the hit were DXCCers, Contesters, and "Section News" (the field
organization turf of SMs, STMs, and net managers), the very crowds which
are the ARRL "most likely to renew" market.
Sunuvagun!
73, de Hans, K0HB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|