Well, I have to throw in my 2 cents worth, couldn't hold back any more.
First, there's definitely more of a sense of accomplishment without packet.
And I've found that not operating with packet certainly increases my
listening skills. Secondly, as for the DX that don't id, I figure that's
their problem. I'll listen for a few seconds, and if they don't id, I move
on. I figure it's their loss, not mine...after all, it could be my qso and
20 others like me that puts them over the top. As for me, I would rather
move on and work a more deserving, and possible rarer dx station. If people
would just pass them instead of working them not knowing the call, then the
non-id station's rates might not stay up...and they might change their
operating practices. In short, I figure I don't need them but they need
me...and if they don't operate accordingly, they aren't going to get me.
Larry Johnson, K5YF
Houston, TX
e-mail: k5yf@wt.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Ramirez, Kenneth (EXCH) <KRAMIREZ@intermedia.com>
To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com' <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Allow Packet for everyone!
...
> Let's ask CQ to allow the use of packet for ALL single
>operators and let the single operators decide how to best use or not
>use packet spotting networks.
>73 Ken N4UK
>
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|