I tried to send this back on August 7, when there was a discusssion of "SO2R
Technique" on the Reflector. My original never appeared (I think the site had
a glitch about then), so I'm trying again. SS CW is almost here! My thoughts
develop mostly from SS CW, but I think my point applies in general.
First, remember that in the recurring discussions of whether or not SO2R should
be a separate class, I (100W; one antenna, so only one radio) have always said
"no" -- it's just more hardware and more skill. If you can jump to the Radio2
to work a QSO, and get back to Radio1 without losing "your" run freq, good for
you. Heck, it's OK with me if you do SOnR, if you can copy the other n-1 while
sending on one.
Then I became aware of "dueling CQs", which I thought was not so fair, but I
accepted it when I saw that I was in the minority (see
and the ensuing thread).
However, the discussion back in August of "how to do SO2R" appears to have
revealed a practice that I think really goes too far: sending "dummy CQs" (or
"QRL") to keep the run freq occupied while you QSO on Radio2.
Sending a CQ when you intend not to answer the replies is not ethical. It's
just broadcasting. And it is misleading the guy who calls you. And sending
QRL is, to me, beyond the spirit of SO2R.
And if the majority does think it's ethical, let's take it one step further.
While you QSO on Radio2, have the software send inverted keying to Radio1.
Voila! Only one signal on the air at time, and no risk of some sneaky QRLer
taking "your" run freq. And think of how you can befuddle the opposition when
they try to decipher the inverted keying! Not only will they waste time, but
they will probably be so confused that they'll lose a few more QSOs before they
get their rhythm back. (Second order software feature: revert to sending dummy
CQ if Radio2 is key-up for more than a couple of seconds -- don't want to get
cited for unmodulated carier!)
73, Art K3KU
"Tune for maximum fun"
CQ-Contest mailing list