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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Courtesy\s*$/: 45 ]

Total 45 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:02:34 -0700; Some recent posts have been disturbing. Someone was upset because a 2x3 call was used to try to contact a DX station in a pileup during a contest. Well, that happens to be the F1 default in MMTTY and; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00187.html (7,730 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "W4GKM" <w4gkm@citlink.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:51:07 -0500; I added 2117 "TU" to all my contacts. Some recent posts have been disturbing. Someone was upset because a 2x3 call was used to try to contact a DX station in a pileup during a contest. Well, that hap; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00193.html (8,481 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: john <w8wej@citynet.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:04:45 +0000; no stones, actually I think the rtty bunch by and large are the most considerate contestants of all--the folks here make it my favorite mode. in short I love rtty contesting because of the folk in it; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00194.html (9,962 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Steve Bookout <steve@nr4m.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:51 -0400; Heck, I can go you one better. PURPOSELY, set up a F3 message for my daughter while she was operating that was 'TU 88 de Jenny NR4M'. She is a licensed ham in her own right, but we just wanted to hav; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00195.html (9,829 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Michael Haack <mikehaack@aol.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:30:03 -0500; Stan, I'm standing with You. No one said a word when a Recent DXpedition came up on RTTY during the "SARTG" contest. I guess maybe they "needed" that one. Not everyone is interested in contesting, no; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00196.html (9,400 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:50:27 +0100; Stan, You must have been unlucky with the guys you worked. Every one of my 1600+ contacts got a 'TU' and I saw lots send the same to me. There are still a lot of courteous RTTY ops out there! Cheers,; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00197.html (9,730 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:51:29 -0500; Steve I rather enjoyed that from Jenny along with the several DX stations that thanked me by name. It's not all about points :) Ron K0IDT -- Original Message -- From: "Steve Bookout" <steve@nr4m.com>; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00198.html (8,249 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:55:56 -0700; Every run QSO I make has a TU, I think it's courteous to give a positive acknowledgement to the other station. And it's nicer than CFM. My S&P Qs do not have a TU. This is because having a TU in the; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00199.html (8,148 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "Stephen Colello" <colellos@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:30:52 -0400; I agree with tu. I run LP and this weekend I got a few "CQ Test" type exchanges. I wasn't sure whether he got me or just gave up. "TU" clears it up. Steve KA2KON -- Original Message -- From: "Jeff St; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00200.html (9,828 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:33:58 -0700; Just to clarify my original post, I meant that the guys recommending efficient exchanges did not include TU in their exchange. In real life, I see many TUs and am thankful that so many of you back me; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00201.html (9,728 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Jim W7RY <w7ry@centurytel.net>; Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:55:46 -0700; I noticed that no one added TU to their QSOs. I guess a simple "thank you" would take almost half a second too long. You would have seen TU if you worked me! It would have been better to say, "no one; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00000.html (6,155 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Bostjan Voncina - S55O <bostjan.voncina@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:38:32 +0200; hello! As this topic goes by i myself find 2 benefits with the TU part. First is the curtesy, second its the confirmation that all is ok and that i can move my vfo when i read TU. Without that there; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00001.html (7,488 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:21:04 -0500; Jim Early on in the test, I sent R K7QQ however, some time Saturday I changed the Macro to ( R TU K7QQ) . Almost everyone I called sent TU CALL Rex K7QQ I noticed that no one added TU to their QSOs.; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00003.html (7,978 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:43:49 -0400; As you might say to Sheldon Cooper: It is a non-optional social convention. A TU, 73 or GL won't kill anyone! 73, GL and TU, Al AB2ZY I noticed that no one added TU to their QSOs. I guess a simple "t; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00004.html (7,721 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>; Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:06:30 +0100; Run macro 'TU GW4SKA QRZ' ... quicker than 'QSL GW4SKA QRZ' ! Cheers, John GW4SKA I noticed that no one added TU to their QSOs. I guess a simple "thank you" would take almost half a second too long.; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00005.html (8,374 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Mark Perrin <n7mq@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:09:37 -0700; Ditto from here. 73, Mark N7MQ As this topic goes by i myself find 2 benefits with the TU part. First is the curtesy, second its the confirmation that all is ok and that i can move my vfo when i read; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00006.html (8,611 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:09:56 -0500; I can think of one reason a guy would answer a QSO with a CQ. Op error. It's pretty easy to get out of sync and hit the wrong button or click on the wrong thing. Especially in So2r. Especially with l; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00007.html (9,577 bytes)
18. [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:12:02 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: The CW and PSK guys think they own the bands. No concept of sharing. I have never heard of a RTTY station jamming CW or PSK but have heard the opposite many; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00008.html (7,936 bytes)
19. [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:14:19 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: I have a different take on that. Which is best: S55O TU W6WRT CQ or TU S55O W6WRT CQ I vote for the first one because it helps avoid confusion. Often under Q; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00009.html (7,064 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] Courtesy (score: 1): Author: Dave Barr <recordupe@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:29:55 -0400; Having worked RTTY for more than 25 years I thought the use of TU in addition to being Thank You was also the equivalent of QSL, as in, when S&Ping, responding to the running station's exchange by se; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-10/msg00010.html (8,200 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]