I don't usually comment on things I read on here, but I would like to
point out that whoever the op was at SU2MT a couple of contest back,
he generated lot's of ill will on my part when he refused to QSO us
on all bands in the contest. It started out on 40M where I was the
op and was having difficulty hearing him with all the long calls from
stateside. He was not working split and because I didn't hear him
come back to someone else, he told me we were black balled for the
rest of the contest. I have seen lot's of unfriendly operating in my
time, but that took the cake.
I guess I couldn't care less about who to send QSL's to. Didn't work
him on any band to get a QSL. I KNOW he was hearing us. Oh well,
others will be on from Z34 (I hope).
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Larry Tyree)
> Reply-to: email@example.com (Larry Tyree)
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: SU2MT contest QSLs
> I recently became aware of a situation that I feel obligated to comment
> on (read: I need a real job).
> Evidently, there has been some talk on some of the reflectors about
> the lack of QSLs from SU2MT when W6NV and K6NA were operating there.
> I even had someone ask me to add a new feature to my program so they
> could preload the dupesheet with these callsigns, so they wouldn't work
> them in the contests!
> I asked Glenn about this and received the following response:
> > ... the fact is I am bound by the wishes of the station owner who
> > at present requires his QSLs direct only.
> Glenn notes that he and Oli have never been advertised as QSL managers
> for this station. He is hopeful that this situation will change and
> they will be able to QSL 100 percent via the bureau.
> I think some people owe Glenn and Oli an apology.
> 73 Tree N6TR
de Sig, N3RS
>From email@example.com (Jeff Bouvier) Wed May 22 02:34:02 1996
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeff Bouvier) (Jeff Bouvier)
Subject: QRV in WPX: Me, Me, Me!! (Bitter, sarcastic humor)
>Adding to the deluge of recent -- and totally unnecessary -- postings:
>I, too, plan to be QRV in the WPX. I will be using either the special call
>AC1O/P5 or AC1O/A51 (if either QTH becomes available).
>If not; well, it'll have to be just plain old AC1O.
>But fear not -- even AC1O will QSL 100% via the bureau (to those who enclose
>two dollars with their QSL. Otherwise, the response rate will be
>73, Walt (If you're there, you're there; if you're not, you're not...)
I totally agree with your feelings on this self-promotion garbage
that we have to endure on this reflector. The rule should at LEAST be:
"If you are not leaving your country for a contest, we don't want to hear
from you unless you reside in a very rare country." We all know what is
rare. Let's not start with, "What is rare to you is not rare to me". We
certainly don't need to hear from any Europeans or North Americans unless
they are leaving their country for a particular contest. Many of the
internet DX bulletins announce the dx'peditions.
That's my $.02. Why do I have this strong feeling that many
subscribers feel as we do but just have not taken the time to express their
I don't need a flame suit. I can handle it!
73, Jeff Bouvier email@example.com
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Reid) Wed May 22 00:24:21 1996
From: email@example.com (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: FASC: Drop CW from Treaty
Alert to contest and DX CW operators:
The special committee appointed after WRC-95 to
consider the dropping of CW (Para S25.5 as
identified and pushed by the New Zealand
ORACLE group) has decided to ask that the entire
concept of CW as part of the international treaty
regarding amateur radio HF operation qualifications
be DROPPED. To wit, eliminate S25.5 entirely.
To read the reasons why, and to submit your comments of
approval or disagreement with this position see
and click on the FASC Position
paper, first link listed on this, the IARU web page.
Note especially paras 9.12, 9.13, and 9.14.
The shoe is now on the foot of those who want CW retained
as a licensing criteria to change the committees minds,
else, the need for CW to obtain broad HF operating rights
will be gone; and maybe well before 1999; read the fine
print of the document! Where to send your comments is
also given on that link.
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (Barry Kutner) Tue May 21 23:55:22 1996
From: email@example.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: Don't work me in WPX
Following tradition of the WPX announcements, here's mine:
If you work me, it's a pirate. Won't be there.
CQ Magazine seems to have a tradition of having their contests on
American holiday weekends, most notably CQWW CW. I wonder if any of our
DX contingent on the reflector can comment if any of their contests are
on their holiday weekends...
P.S. I support N6TJ's suggestion in the recent NCJ alternating CQWW CW
and SSB weekends each year.
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >WB2R (FRC)