jhs@mitre-bedford.ARPA (12/10/85)
I too am a subscriber to QST. I often wonder, however, why they have to charge us an additional fee for QEX (which I don't get) when the content of QST (aside from paid ads) is so skimpy. I would prefer to see the content of QEX thrown in free in QST, making it a MUCH more interesting publication, more comparable to Ham Radio or 73. As it is, there is very little in each issue that (in my opinion) is worth keeping. If I had a choice I would take QEX instead of QST. Maybe they could offer that as a membership option. -de W3IKG
michaelk@copper.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (12/15/85)
In article <453@brl-tgr.ARPA> jhs@mitre-bedford.ARPA writes: >I too am a subscriber to QST. I often wonder, however, why they have to >charge us an additional fee for QEX (which I don't get) when the content >of QST (aside from paid ads) is so skimpy. I would prefer to see the >content of QEX thrown in free in QST, making it a MUCH more interesting >publication, more comparable to Ham Radio or 73. As it is, there is >very little in each issue that (in my opinion) is worth keeping. > >If I had a choice I would take QEX instead of QST. Maybe they could >offer that as a membership option. > > -de W3IKG I've been a life member of ARRL for about 10 years or so (so, my QST is now "free" sort of). I subscribed to QEX a little after it got going, thinking I'd get more of a Ham Radio technically oriented publication. I was very dissappointed, and let my subscription drop upon expiration. QEX was more like "amateur elementary electronics". The death of Mr. Fisk (W1HR) at HR was sadly the end of good, consistant technical amateur radio publication. Alas. -de WB4IOJ (very ex- KH6FON) P.S. - In a couple weeks it will be the 20th birthday of my WH6FON novice licence. I knew you'd be thrilled to hear it. :-) -- Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Software Development Products Aloha, Oregon