Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Trailing\s+CQ\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Trailing\s+CQ\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:35:51 -0700; The rationale for a trailing 'CQ' in CQ and TU messages is no more true for RTTY than CW. CW contesting has decades of existence proof that such a trailing CQ is not needed, i.e., the rationale is fl; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00197.html (10,296 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:59 -0700; All very interesting. But I don't see the problem, at least for W6SX. My S&P F4 is F4 W6SX,{TX}{ENTER}W6SX {RX} I include the ENTER to position my call on the left on a new line which is where many a; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00201.html (6,923 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hachadorian" <k6ll.dave@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:04:45 -0700; I'm all in favor of dropping the trailing CQ. In fact, I made the same proposal one year ago: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/RTTY/2015-02/msg00083.html My proposal received little support; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00202.html (11,379 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:32:18 -0400; I run low power in the contests, and as such most of my contacts are s/p. With the slower cadence of a rtty contest CQ, I really like the trailing CQ, so I can decide if the station is suitable for m; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00206.html (12,253 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:39:46 -0500; I agree wholeheartedly as above and when I'm CQing, I don't want a potential caller that tuned across my signal mid-transmission to have to wonder if I'm answering a CQ, answering a caller, or CQing.; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00207.html (10,320 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Lee Sawkins <ve7cc@shaw.ca>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:40:35 -0600 (MDT); Ed The trailing CQ in RTTY CQ messages is equivalent to the trailing TEST in CW CQ messages. I will not be eliminating it. When I see or hear a call a couple of times, I really want to know if I can; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00208.html (10,599 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "V Sidarau" <vs_otw@rogers.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:45:38 -0400; Ed, The trailing CQ (some people do QRZ...) is still quite necessary. It is a clear message, CALL ME, I AM AVAILABLE. A call-sign printed with no trailing CQ, QRZ or TEST means, somebody calls somebo; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00210.html (10,910 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Jim Preston <jpreston1@cox.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:00:10 -0700; Yes. Same here. Jim N6VH On 3/24/2016 2:32 PM, Mark n2qt wrote: I run low power in the contests, and as such most of my contacts are s/p. With the slower cadence of a rtty contest CQ, I really like t; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00212.html (9,957 bytes)
9. [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:16:55 -0500; Hi all, Like many others, I have been using the trailing CQ for a couple of years now, partly based on suggestions made here, but also from my own perspective of seeing a callsign come up on screen,; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00215.html (7,740 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:53:46 -0500; Mark's comment is the very reason to be put CQ at the end of the message. I think those that are for eliminating it do not S&P as much as Mark and me. We do a LOT of S&P. You just can't run for long; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00217.html (13,049 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:54:19 -0700; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00222.html (10,375 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:33:05 -0700; WHEREAS it has been determined that the trailing CQ can confuse the RTTY Skimmer, and WHEREAS there is no reasonable prognosis that the RTTY Skimmers will be able to solve this any time soon, and WHE; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00223.html (10,824 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:48:18 -0400; I concur but just like people that answer a CQ by sending the CQing station's callsign before their own, it is unlikely to change. If someone happens to tune in and hear just my trailing CQ they have; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00225.html (7,925 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Jurgen Geldhof <list@on5mf.be>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:29:46 +0100; Hi, same goes for me, the trailing CQ (or QRZ) makes me win some time when S&Ping. Maybe we need a new Q-code? :-) Op 24/03/2016 om 22:32 schreef Mark n2qt: I run low power in the contests, and as su; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00234.html (12,790 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Ryan Noguchi via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:18:53 +0000 (UTC); Wouldn't "QRV" work in this context? 73, Ryan AI6DO same goes for me, the trailing CQ (or QRZ) makes me win some time when S&Ping. Maybe we need a new Q-code? :-) Op 24/03/2016 om 22:32 schreef Mark; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00246.html (14,323 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:06:27 -0400; My understanding of the problem is S&P operators like CQ at the end to save time. Skimmers like the CQ at the end so they know its a valid CQ - running station. Problem is when someone tailends the C; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00247.html (11,290 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@dxatlas.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:27:46 -0400; The latest version of RTTY Skimmer Server (not yet published, will be tested by a few volunteers in the EA contest) discards the CQ if it appears between two different callsigns. This should eliminat; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00248.html (11,067 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:54:33 -0700; What are we supposed to do this weekend in the WPX SSB?? There are no skimmers for SSB. How in the heck am I going to know who to work and how to find them without a skimmer? Guess I just won't get o; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00252.html (12,119 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 21:01:36 -0400; The period requires a shift to figures case. With the sift to figures and shift back with the space, the better solution would be to use TEST! 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 3/25/2016 5:06 PM, Michael Clarson; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00253.html (11,774 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ (score: 1): Author: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188@ac0c.com>; Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:02:13 -0500; I appreciate your continued work on Skimmer Alex. You are making a fine product even better. Thanks! 73/jeff/ac0c www.ac0c.com alpha-charlie-zero-charlie The latest version of RTTY Skimmer Server (no; /archives//html/RTTY/2016-03/msg00254.html (11,956 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]