>
>
>So, possible frequencies should be prescreened by the operator by
>listening some period of time, be it five seconds, 10 seconds, 20
>seconds, to determine if it is at least "possibly clear," before either
>calling QRL? or CQ. Perhaps QRLers are more likely to listen less or not
>at all. My view is QRL? or a short, snappy CQ, after listening to
>determine that the frequency is possibly or likely clear, accomplish the
>same thing. If so, why should QRL? be favored over CQ?
>
>Rich Boyd KE3Q
>
>
>
Hi All,
Whatever happened to the once-suggested "didit dit"? I still hear
people use this once in a while, and those who know what it means reply
accordingly. But it seems a lot of ops don't know what it means! Takes
up a lot less time to send.
Zack W9SZ
>From Robert Penneys <penneys@brahms.udel.edu> Sun Jul 23 04:31:20 1995
From: Robert Penneys <penneys@brahms.udel.edu> (Robert Penneys)
Subject: GZ-Int-A
Message-ID: <199507230331.XAA20797@brahms.udel.edu>
Or, Int...... 'twas a dark and stormy nite..... had fun on Internet Sprint,
broken antenna, KD1IJ riding shogun, 88 Qs before the plurality get thrown
out, hey, it's only a hobby.......
Go NOIDS!!
Bob
Bob Penneys, WN3K Internet: penneys@brahms.udel.edu
Frankford Radio Club N.E.R.D.S.
|