Pete Smith wrote:
> Is there maybe a semantic issue here, rather than a real one? I thought
> Howie was describing something like the following - assume starting with
> calling someone on 20 while CQing on 40:
>
> on 20 N4AF sends "N4AF" [answering N5OT's CQ]
> on 20 N5OT sends "N4AF N5OT 30 Mark TX" while simultaneously on 40 N4AF
> sends "CQ NA N4AF NA"
> on 20 N4AF sends "N5OT 21 AL NC N4AF" while simultaneously on 40 K5ZD sends
> "K5ZD" [answering N4AF's CQ]
> on 40 (after finishing on 20) N4AF sends "K5ZD N4AF 22 AL NC"
But you have made K5ZD wait a long time before N4AF responds to him. If I was
K5ZD, I probably would have given up on N4AF.
> while
> simultaneously on 20 N6TR sends "N6TR" [calling N4AF]
> on 20 (after finishing on 40) N4AF sends "N6TR N4AF 23 AL NC"
You have made N6TR wait even longer for N4AF to respond. I certainly wouldn't
wait that long.
> on 20 N6TR sends "N4AF 33 TREE OR N6TR"; meanwhile after >5KHz QSY, on 40
> N4AF sends "CQ NA N4AF NA"
>
> That looks to me like a legal couplet on 20 and a legal single QSO on 40,
> followed by >5 KHz QSY on 40 before another CQ
>
> Where's the rule violation?
No rules violation, just poor operating by N4AF. (Just so there's no confusion
-
this use of N4AF in the example is completely fictional. Howie is a great op !)
73,
Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|