One thing I think we should keep in mind is the possibility the person who's using the frequency is NOT a contester. I would imagine most of us would respond to pretty much anything that got transmit
This is not any kind of news for me and it is really de facto standard at least for me for contesting since 1969. To my honest suprise, it is not, for others. Besides, other things like IE, a single
Mark, Many of the people who are now active don't have the background that many of us 'OT's (no pun intended) do of coming up through the traffic handling ranks where the didit dit method was learned
It surprises me that this topic has generated as much comment as it has. This isn't brain surgery. This is common sense and courtesy. To me, a simple ? is certainly enough to get across the point som
This is an excellent point, and one that serves to remind us that even during a contest, contesters don't own the band. Casual ops are more prone than we to not understanding the scope of what's at
Ah, Bob you said all! The "ie", "AS", "e" and all those other NTS shortcuts we all learned as kids seem to have been lost in this new age. I've found that "?" with a "C" response still works most of
I believe that blindly sending ? on what appears to be a quiet frequency, without first listening for some tens of seconds is simply ROTTEN OPERATING. I'm at ZD8Z running Eastern Europe, and get a ca
Hello Jim, It's a pity that you lost JT, but just imagine, what if that W3XXX, who do not hear JT due to propagation and do not hear you as you are listening, that W3XXX sends fat "QRL?" instead of f
Nick, I agree with you. In a contest like CQWW CW, 30 seconds is an eternity and an unreasonable amount of time to listen to a freq. Do that, and you'll hear someone else grab it first. I always list
And that, my friends, is the problem. Mark, N5OT _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-cont
I don't recall seeing the number "30 seconds" cited. I take "some tens of seconds" to mean 20. That's only one QSO at a rate of 180. I don't think it's unreasonable. There are many more foolish ways
My very good friend Jim, N6TJ, had written: Nick, UT2UZ, responded: This raises an interesting question: Are frequency "Squatter's Rights" established by transmitting, or also duration of receiving t
EU slice of the HF world is about 10.000 km covering whole USA and Japan. I can happily run parallel with Oceania stations most of the time. Only DX Cluster may show double occupancy. Hamradio freqs
To me, that's akin to saying there's no time for operating properly, and I just don't believe that's the case. There are dozens of ways even top-performing stations 'lose' a few seconds here or ther
I certainly have no problems losing a few seconds here or there. In fact, most of the time I feel like I'm desperately rushing about trying to catch raindrops in a (very) leaky bucket and hoping I m
Guys, in my humble opinion the "?" versus "QRL ?" question does not make a big difference, as I do not see confusion caused by this "habit". But I see more confusion caused by (mainly SSB): - Using "
Well Ward looking at the 'claimed' scores for the recent NAQP CW there was plenty of spare seconds to catch raindrops. The high 'claimed' top score only averaged 1.5 Q's per minute. Sending ? and the
While I agree with Mark, the crucial issue isn't what is sent to determine if a frequency is in use. The critical component is how much you LISTEN to determine if a frequency is in use. Far too often