[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R technique

To: w9wi@w9wi.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R technique
From: "Guy Molinari" <guy_molinari@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 04:18:50 +0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
During NAQP I did have to concede my freq once for that very reason.  I just 
chalk it up as a risk associated with SO2R and a reason to get it right.  I 
just wish some folks would just listen, listen, listen first.

It's probably the same lids in the DX pileups who call and call and call on 
top of everyone else.

73 - Guy

>From: <w9wi@w9wi.com>
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R technique
>Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:23:48 +0300
>   "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee> wrote:
> > The most digusting thing are those guys who just land on
> >your frequency and
> > start CQ immidiately. That happens disturbingly often
> >those days and often
> > when you are trying to copy a weak station who is
> >sending his call to you
> > several times.
>Tonno, I think you're being too nice to these
>people<grin>.  Seriously, I believe starting a CQ without
>inquiring whether the frequency is occupied is
>**cheating**.  It should result in penalties and
>potentially disqualification, except that it's too
>difficult to prove with reasonable certainty.
>On the other hand, if they ask, and you don't answer
>because you're too busy on the second radio, then your run
>frequency is gone.
>I have on occasion intentionally allowed a run frequency
>to be lost, because it was being relatively unproductive &
>I knew it would be easy to find another one.
>I have also on occasion had to ignore weak callers,
>because there were too many folks out there ready to steal
>my run frequency if the guy I was working wasn't loud
>enough to scare them off.
>Doug Smith W9WI
>Pleasant View, TN EM66
>CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>