A reference was made here recently to a previous discussion on
callsign choices; namely, what makes a call "good" or "bad" for CW
and PHONE contesting. Ed, WA2SRQ made the reference, and I asked if
he still had the discussion captured or archived somewhere. He
doesn't still have it, so I'm asking publicly here if anyone on the
reflector might have a copy of the discussion. Ed thinks it
happened in December, which is right before I joined the reflector.
If anyone has captured and archived the discussion, I'd like a copy
of it mailed to me here if possible. Thanks for any help on this.
73, Kirk WR3O
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Fri Jan 14 15:39:45 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Callsign Discussion
Message-ID: <758561985.422000.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> A reference was made here recently to a previous discussion on
> callsign choices; namely, what makes a call "good" or "bad" for CW
> and PHONE contesting. Ed, WA2SRQ made the reference, and I asked if
> he still had the discussion captured or archived somewhere. He
> doesn't still have it, so I'm asking publicly here if anyone on the
> reflector might have a copy of the discussion. Ed thinks it
> happened in December, which is right before I joined the reflector.
> If anyone has captured and archived the discussion, I'd like a copy
> of it mailed to me here if possible. Thanks for any help on this.
To get the archive of December's messages, send a message to
FileServ@TGV.COM that says
SENDME CQ-CONTEST-ARCHIVE.1993-12
--Trey
>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org Fri Jan 14 16:47:24 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: Proposed rover rule change
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401140912.A28702-b100000@teal.csn.org>
On 14 Jan 1994, Hans Brakob wrote:
> Not sure I like the wording of the suggested rule change.
>
> Why not just a simple change of "no rovers in club score" and then let the
> rovers do what they wish within the rules?
>
> The proposal as written may be unenforceable, will certainly be
> controversial, and the current rules already contain language which
> encourages the rovers to worked fixed stations.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>
hans raises a good point. the proposed wording addresses previously
expressed concerns about grid circling. this is the practice
of pairs of rovers going out and "dancing" around the corners
of grids working each other. hans is suggesting that this
practice be permitted, so long as these rovers do not exclude fixed
stations. i believe the effect of this would be to encourage
rovers to go out in groups of two or more. this could result in
more activity in sparsely populated areas, where the number of
fixed station participants alone might not justify a rover
operation. 73, walt, w0cp
>From geoiii@bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) Fri Jan 14 17:15:15 1994
From: geoiii@bga.com (George Fremin III - WB5VZL) (George Fremin III)
Subject: wanted: ss log data
Message-ID: <9401141715.AA21519@wixer>
fellow contesters
i have been reading N6BVs book _All The Right Angles_ - it is a
very good book - and it got me to thinking about what arrl sections
you really need to be loud into to do well in the ss.
i have looked at logs from texas over the last few years and
can see what sections seem to produce the most qsos. what i
would like to do is look at this from other places around the
country and see how it changes. what i would like is the
arrl format of your ss logs either phone or cw or both.
this year or last year or whatever. if you dont want me
to have all of your log - then you can send me just the
coloum that contains the section.
i promise to post the results of this to the refelector -
i think it will be intresting.
thanks
george fremin iii - wb5vzl -
*do not* post your log info to the refelctor -
send it to: geoiii@bga.com
--
George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U.
WB5VZL
512/416-0140
geoiii@bga.com
|