It has never been clear to me why so many seem to think 2x1's are bad
news--a lot of them were turned in at gate 1. Perhaps someone who thinks
that can illuminate me. I DO understand the inherent problems with
something like WO0G or W0OG, and with almost-all-dit callsigns like
WS5H. And, for those whose callsigns are notorious, a change offers an
opportunity to hide for a while.
When I came back to the fold in '82, after a lapse of 16 or 17 years, I
took all the tests one morning in SF, and my friend who had talked me
into it told me I would probably get NI6-something. "What kind of
*(^&(^!@ callsign is that?" I asked. He had to explain it to me. Had I
NOT lapsed, I think I would have been just short on seniority when the
first callsign circus came to town--I was licensed in '56.
I LIKE my callsign--with the "I" it's not perfect on CW, and there are
too durned many six tangos--out of 78 possibles--contesting and DXing.
But it's short--like a dagger in a pileup, I relate to it, and I see
little benefit in changing it. After all, N6AA, N6ZZ and N6DX are taken
:-) And it looks like there will be a fearsome struggle for what good
ones are available. I also have always liked the fact that there are no
ghosts--nobody else has had this callsign. I guess nobody else will, for
a while: I plan to sit this one out.
--
Garry Shapiro, NI6T
Editor, The DXer
newsletter of the Northern California DX Club
>From w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede) Fri Aug 30 03:15:02 1996
From: w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede) (Bob Selbrede)
Subject: naqp logs?? - Reply
Message-ID: <199608300215.AA19497@bart.ccis.com>
Thanks for answering Tor's question, Steve. Actually, the E-Mail is
working FB here. I've been gone on 2 business trips and 1 Boy Scout Summer
Camp in the last 2 weeks so I'm a bit behind on my E-Mail correspondance.
Tor, I received your log all three times you sent it! I should get caught
up tonight. If you have E-Mailed me an NAQP CW Log and haven't gotten a
reply by tomorrow, drop me a note.
In reference to AC4ZO's comments last night about refused Fed-Ex
mail, THEY NEVER CAME TO THIS RESIDENCE! I would have no reason to turn
away his or anyone else's log submission. I'll be contacting him to get the
Fed-Ex tracking number so I can investigate this one myself. Keep them logs
coming! They should be post marked or E-Mailed by 4 September. Thanks.
73, Bob W9NQ
At 11:00 AM 8/29/96 -0700, Stephen Merchant wrote:
>At 10:35 AM 8/29/96 CDT, N4OGW wrote:
>>Has anyone else submitted naqp logs via email? I've sent several emails to
>>w9nq@ccis.com, but haven't gotten a single confirmation.
>
>Bob's e-mail has been giving him a few problems lately, but I think he
>ultimately gets the mail. If anyone is nervous about this, send me your log
>and I'll make sure Bob gets it.
>
>73, Steve W6EMS
>merchant@silcom.com
>
>
>From utahfolk@konnections.com (Utah Folk) Sun Aug 4 19:41:02 1996
From: utahfolk@konnections.com (Utah Folk) (utahfolk)
Subject: a little math ......
Message-ID: <3204EEBD.FDC@konnections.com>
10*log(150/100)=1.76 = 0.293 S-units
QSB comes in 10 db CHUNKS!
...... de W (the Ultimate VANITY Call!)
|