>From: kx9x@juno.com
>Hey, everybody-
>I got this note from an extremely disgruntled ham. Anybody else get this....
The tone is rather abrasive & the spelling could use some help but... to
some degree, the complainant has a point.. as it does appear many of the
RTTY operators were *not* listening before transmitting. One result was a
precipitious (sp?) decline in the number of 40m CW QSOs made in the
Tennessee QSO Party Sunday afternoon; those trying to work CW near the
recommended frequency of 7040 were often smothered by RTTY signals. These
weren't (all) QRP operators buried in the din either; several were
well-known CW contesters with big signals.
That's really been my impression of RTTY in general; few casual ops seem to
care if they're about to stomp out a CW signal. Which isn't too horribly
big of a deal when you're up above 7055, but when you start spreading below
7040 you really are going to get some people mad if you don't listen...
BTW, what's the calendar schedule for this RTTY test? It didn't always
coincide with the TQP.. and we may have to move our weekend to avoid
collisions in the future.
73 Doug
==========================================================================
Douglas E. Smith W9WI/4 desmith@Telalink.net.xxx
1385 Old Clarksville Pike (preferred for long files)
Pleasant View, TN 37146-8098 USA -or-
(615) 746-5205 72777.3143@compuserve.com.xxx
(preferred for time-critical info)
(.xxx added to end of email address to hopefully foil spammers)
==========================================================================
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|