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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ETHICS\s*$/: 61 ]

Total 61 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:00:30 -0500; Well, in one case you know at once that NO station from the USA can validly operate there. In the other case, some US stations can validly operate there, so you leave that up to them as to whether th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00053.html (11,344 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: Steve Sacco <nn4x@embarqmail.com>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:29:03 -0400; Chad - Please don't take this personally, but I think the attitude you express is part of why the world is in such trouble right now. IMO, we all must be our brother's keepers, to some extent. If I o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00054.html (9,734 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:42:52 +0300; I think US stations are extremely ethical, at least compared to EU, don't know how the comparison to VE would look like:) I did interesting statistics on ES5RR ARRL DX CW SOAB operation from my stati; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00056.html (11,371 bytes)
24. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: kd4d@comcast.net; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC); Hi Don: I agree that you aren't responsible. I must admit, though, that if I ever got tired and accidently called a station out of band (or on the wrong VFO when operating split on 40), I would GREAT; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00057.html (10,070 bytes)
25. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:14:00 -0800; True. It is the responsibility of each station to operate within the constraints of their license. That said, it would be a common courtesy to point out to a USA station when they are operating outsi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00058.html (11,005 bytes)
26. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "David Levine" <david@levinecentral.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:04:14 -0400; I'm in agreement with the VExxx that have responded to this thread. I am sure I've accidently gone out of band during a contest with certainly no malicious intent other then it was an oversight on my; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00059.html (11,461 bytes)
27. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Ted Bryant" <W4NZ@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:42:20 -0400; Why is it now still necessary to have a "U.S." and a "foreign" phone segment on any band which is allocated exclusively to amateur radio? Ted W4NZ This brings up an interesting point. Is it really th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00060.html (11,020 bytes)
28. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:26:15 -0400; Not that I condone the practice of US amateurs not knowing where they're allowed to operate (far from it); the problem, Doug, that as a non-US licensed amateur, how would you be reasonably expected t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00061.html (8,564 bytes)
29. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: RUDOLF TORSTEN and HIROKO C CLAY <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT); Assuming that it is a contest where USA/VE contacts count for points... Note that Cabrillo doesn't have to have the precise frequency listed in the log, so there may be no indication to the contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00064.html (9,287 bytes)
30. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "VE5ZX" <ve5zx@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:56:51 -0600; Amen! More than a dozen times during the WPX state-side stations called me when I was CQing well below 14150. Other than the previously mentioned ethical and moral issues I didn't see why I should p; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00066.html (9,047 bytes)
31. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:12:27 -0500; The problem becomes, however, when it's not clear cut: I am absolutely NOT going to interrogate any US ham that calls me between 14150 and 14200 to be sure they are extra class. Nor am I going to stu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00067.html (11,470 bytes)
32. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:37:34 -0600; Steve, You hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with the world. We have people and agencies doing things they have absolutely no authority to be doing what it is they are doing. I am not empow; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00068.html (10,349 bytes)
33. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:52:50 -0700; Hi Chad The thing I wonder about is are these contacts legal? If the station calling was operating illegally, I would think the only thing the receiving station could legally do is delete those conta; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00069.html (10,051 bytes)
34. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:41:07 -0600; I am impressed. I have always wondered but never took the time to lookup calls when I run on 40m below the General subband on 40 on SSB to see how many were our of their band allocation. CC Packet Cl; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00070.html (13,119 bytes)
35. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:09:46 -0400; The "sticky wicket" here is that you don't necessarily 'know' that someone is operating out of their license restrictions...unless you verify against a current license data base. Sure, if you are a U; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00071.html (12,700 bytes)
36. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: VK4TI <sfs04@westnet.com.au>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:02:14 +0800 (WST); The problem exists when a knowing vs an unknowing - I would not have an exact idea what most Pacific islands have as frequency allocations but they vary all over the shop...I do know that YJ - Vanuat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00072.html (10,120 bytes)
37. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:11:29 +0200; Same is true for the Europeans I heard during the recent ARRL contest cqing on 14.350, they will have missed lots of qsos beside being answered also by many US stations. 73 Peter I think US stations; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00073.html (12,740 bytes)
38. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:20:18 -0400; Excellent questions, Tom. I believe the ARRL General contest rules that apply to this situation are: 2.1.Entrants agree to be bound by the provisions and intent of ARRL contest rules. 2.2.Entrants ag; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00074.html (16,428 bytes)
39. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:32:14 -0400; I think most of your analysis is correct, but your identification of each station's license class may not be correct. Per my previous post, you can't determine the operating privileges of a US contes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00075.html (14,007 bytes)
40. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1): Author: "Edward" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:01:31 -0400; You must be assuming that the log shows frequency data. In my case, I am using older software that logs all 20M QSOs as 14000. In general, I disagree with the responsibility of the receiving station; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00077.html (9,420 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]