I must acknowledge what Ed wrote!
It's imperative to associate myself with both the original Ed's
writing and the shot made by Mark.
Bat I also have to enforce Mark's shotted judgment even if I am a poor
and alone soul.
Bravo, bravissimo! Giusto, giustissimo! Ed.
That is quite heartily translated by google, not myself, as:
Bravo, very good! Right, absolutely right! Ed.
Salvo iw1ayd
PS It's not anyway connected to Figaro. For whom may be concerned.
>Bravo, Ed!
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 11:09 PM, "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com> wrote:
>
> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>
> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:52 PM, <rtty-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
> rtty@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rtty-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rtty-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. LIDs (Ed Muns)
> 2. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Scott Schultz)
> 3. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Salvatore Irato)
> 4. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Larry)
> 5. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Joe Subich, W4TV)
> 6. Re: LIDs (Mark Perrin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 03:09:12 -0400
> From: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>
> To: <RTTY@contesting.com>
> Cc: "'Thomas F. Giella W4HM'" <thomasfgiella@gmail.com>
> Subject: [RTTY] LIDs
> Message-ID: <409F5479582C4874B50EF26EE894E713@X2201>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>
> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
> "LIDs" were replaced by recognition of good operating and positive
> contributions. How many of us remember the A1 Operators Club (I may not
> have the name exactly right) that the ARRL sponsored years ago? This was a
> formal recognition of who we thought were good operators. Celebrating good
> operating will be many fold more beneficial than denigrating each other
> publicly.
>
> As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's
> thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering
> frequencies. All the subsequent posts chastised Thomas for his view.
> Contrarily, when I read his post prior to all the backlash, my reaction was
> "Wow, this is a breath of fresh air in our protracted debate about RTTY
> QRMing of JT65 operations." I'm really glad he spoke up with that
> perspective.
>
> In fact, I had composed a very similar posting myself, but decided against
> perpetuating a thread that I felt had already spun way out of bounds. Now,
> I regret not sharing my perspective. Maybe I'll retrieve it and send.
>
> BTW, I'm not against disagreement. I'm against aggressively attacking
> another perspective. And, I really dislike aggressively attacking the
> person in the process. It's much more effective to express disagreement by
> articulating the value of your own perspective. I also like to identify the
> value in someone else's opinion, especially when I initially have a negative
> reaction to what they express. I'm often rewarded with a new and deeper
> understanding of the issue on the table.
>
> I challenge all of us who enjoy RTTY operations to set an example for the
> rest of our hobby and increase the amount of celebrating the positive rather
> than sniping about what we perceive as negative or "wrong" with someone
> else's view.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:24:27 -0600
> From: "Scott Schultz" <schultz0530@gmail.com>
> To: <RTTY@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <3D78F8CEF0EF42E0A69C362F944AE354@RadioRoom>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Ed W0YK wrote:
>
> ?Operationally, the safest thing to do is simply avoid these small, known
> areas. If there is no other place to operate on the band, then we need to
> take the time to carefully discern if there is on-going operation in those
> areas before assuming the bandwidth is clear and then claiming it temporarily
> for our RTTY transmissions.?
>
> With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the surface,
> this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in reality, I have an
> issue with this notion of working around their ?watering hole? during a
> contest. During normal operations, I agree with the general principle of
> making sure a frequency is clear before we claim it and honestly do make
> every attempt to adhere to that. But also, there is an actual rule that no
> station can ?own? a frequency. Just because it is a well know and well
> advertised ?watering hole?, this does not guarantee that users of that mode
> will have interference free use of it at all times. There is nothing special
> about those JT modes, or any other mode, that gives it special privileges or
> makes then exempt from those rules. When I choose to respond to some of those
> ?too many contest? rants, although this may seem rude to some people, I make
> it clear to them that if someone promised that you would have interference
> free access
to
> any mode on any band any time you want it, they lied to you!
>
> The bottom line is that I do not thing we are being unreasonable. Amateur
> radio is a recreational past time (no matter what the EMCOMM people tell
> you!) and working the JT modes is a choice some chose to make within the
> hobby. What I resent is the suggestion that I MUST work around them all of
> time.
>
> In his next letter, Ed wrote:
>
> ?As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's
> thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering
> frequencies.?
>
> OK, I admit to taking credit (blame?) for starting that line reactions. But
> let?s be clear, I was not admonishing him for suggesting that we should steer
> clear of the JT frequencies, it was because he claimed that by avoiding them,
> it did not adversely affect his score. Obviously he thought I was being a bit
> harsh, but I think the general consensus here is that his statement was
> ludicrous. If he found my ?less-than-subtle? approach to be rude, I have to
> believe that sooner or later someone else would have said something that
> would have ended up with the same end result.
>
> A frequent theme of these post-contest posts are that we need to share the
> bands. I am all for that, 100%. When that is said however, it is usually
> addressed to the people doing the contesting, not the people complaining
> about so-called ?unfair? contest behavior. Well now let me turn the coin
> over. Claiming a particular frequency for your own personal mode of choice
> and expecting to have interference free access to it any time you want is not
> sharing!
>
> 73,
> de Scott N0IU
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:44:06 +0100
> From: Salvatore Irato <iw1ayd@gmail.com>
> To: rtty@contesting.com, ed@w0yk.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID:
> <CAAhLcE4U7n1Ktm4ShW7+5k+twQKyDV9DsfrO615z9Z=ezm0AMA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I agree Ed.
> Staying out of theirs - JTxx - slice could be done, quite easy. I hope
> they - JTxx - all could do the same. I wish I had do this quite
> forever.
> Sometimes I failed I know. But not for this I am a lid. cast the first
> stone who is without sin.
>
> So we have also other to do ...
>
> We have also to say this - please respect the mode/QRG slices - to all
> other OMs. I am thinking, at first, to DX expeditions still use -
> specially for the lower WARC - theirs (JTxx) claimed QRGs since
> forever.
> It is not that trivial in several ways.
>
> So x580 x740 x140 xx080 xx100 xx080 xx920 x080 are not to be used by
> DX Expeditions?
>
> All those QRGs but particularly 10140 and 18100 are the most
> endangered by JTxx all the time from the EU perspective. Quite nothing
> was done by those JTxx guys over years.
> Now that we are already reachable on this email list or others email
> lists the problem arise ... when nobody had taken care of over years
> and years of DX expeditions(?).
>
> OK, I understand and agree with the proposal not to make involuntarily
> QRM, I stress involuntarily for several good reasons. Not the last we
> have had voluntarily and willingly interferences on each DX
> expeditions.
>
> I could have wrote wrongly my ideas but this problem still remain and,
> if not, the JTxx guys would take care of it we must take care of it as
> the RTTY guys. Isn't?
>
> May I ask to change the tread title as Lids running JTxx on RTTY
> frequency. It seems more appropriate by now. Asking to others for
> changes is a must today, when somebody would not change his
> habits.There are always two sides to every coin. Starting with saying
> Lid to others doesn't seem a good way to get into a discussion. The
> final sentence seems to be is already written prior to, in this case,
> the debate.
> Nonetheless we could and should have that right and clever attitude as
> you Ed, it's understandable clever and agreeable. But we need also to
> change other "rules" and gentlemen agreements all over our tiny and
> precious world.
>
> Hope not to have harassed anyone, but things and facts out of my
> personal opinions may show "the unabridged truth".
>
> I hope we aren't wall to wall each other or the real life, ours and
> others real life - haven't teach anything after all those years of
> bits, filters and stop bits and complex decoding algorithms.
>
> Where we would get today?
>
> 73 de iw1ayd Salvo
>
> PS those QRG attribution show plainly how - xxxx? - could shape
> themselves theirs life and then cry to others.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:17:02 -0500
> From: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>
> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <9D0F277D46DC4EEC882D61AC2554FCDD@XV2W>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> During CQWW CW activity often extends to .130 (sometimes higher) on 20, 15,
> 10. But that doesn't seem to bother RTTY or digital stations. Too many times
> I have heard a station running on an "RTTY" frequency for a long time get
> blasted by an RTTY station just start sending. Same thing on a "digital"
> frequency. As was pointed out earlier intentional QRM goes both ways. Now I
> will grant you that if I want to operate RTTY while CQWW CW is running that
> it can be difficult as the most likely place for me to find RTTY QSOs is the
> "RTTY" frequencies but that does not relieve of my responsibility to not
> cause intentional QRM.
>
> 73, Larry W6NWS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:03 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
>
>
> 1) This was an RTTY contest and an RTTY list ...
> 2) CW operators generally bail as soon as they *hear* the
> JT65/JT9 and/or PSK modes - they don't like long duration
> tones in their headsets and they *listen*.
> 3) in most cases (except 40 meters) the CW activity does not
> extend above xx.070 even in SS or CQWW CW except for a few
> thick-skulled fools who generally move because their rate
> suffers.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-06 9:44 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
>> Why are you not complaining about CW on these frequencies. During CQWW CW
>> the bands were packed all the way to xx.100.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>>
>>
>> To: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va@gmail.com>, RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
>> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
>> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:13:55 -0500
>> List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
>>
>>> The other problem is often the JTx guys run SSB type bandwidths
>>
>> I understand the SSB type bandwidth/tuning in the waterfall behavior.
>> However setting that aside, there were dozens of RTTY signals dead on
>> top of JT9 and JT65 stations this weekend. The issue is that RTTY
>> operators don't know - or care - about the 48 seconds on/12 seconds
>> off/2 minute cycle of JT65/JT9. If a frequency is vacant for even a
>> second some RTTY operator will press F1 there.
>>
>> The only real solution is score reductions for those who transmit
>> (particularly those who run) below xx.0805 mark - particularly on
>> 80/20/15/10.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:08:31 -0500
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <54AD3DDF.4080504@subich.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> > With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the
> > surface, this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in
> > reality, I have an issue with this notion of working around their
> > ?watering hole? during a contest. During normal operations, I agree
> > with the general principle of making sure a frequency is clear before
> > we claim it and honestly do make every attempt to adhere to that.
>
> What is the difference between operating in a contest and during
> "normal" times when it comes to gentlemanly operating? When a band
> is open, it is generally full of users - that applies to the JT and
> PSK "centers of activity" just as much as the broader bands. Even
> this morning when I hear (see with the P3 panadapter) no RTTY signals
> on 15 meters, there is activity in the JT65/JT9 segments. The same is
> true on true on 40, 30, 20, 17, 12 and 10 meters ... there may be very
> little RTTY activity but there a dozen or more JT-mode signals visible
> on the waterfall/P3 *per band*. Those stations don't "go away" on the
> weekend/during a contest ... just the opposite open bands are even more
> active during the weekend.
>
> There seems to be an attitude that WINLINK/PACTOR and contesting are
> the "highest and best use" of the bands and therefor contesters do not
> need to listen for other activity and that WINLINK/PACTOR can fire up
> on top of even contesters. Most amateurs would agree that attitude is
> simply *wrong*.
>
> As Ed suggested, contesters need to be aware where these other modes
> congregate. Avoid those frequencies if possible but *if you must*
> operate there, *know the characteristics of those signals* so you can
> recognize them and not treat them as noise to run roughshod over.
> Unfortunately like so many others, contesters don't appear to bother
> to learn about the characteristics or centers of activity of the non-
> mainstream modes. Perhaps it is time for contest sponsors to include
> that information in their announcements and start removing credit and
> multipliers if necessary.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-07 7:24 AM, Scott Schultz wrote:
>> Ed W0YK wrote:
>>
>> ?Operationally, the safest thing to do is simply avoid these small,
>> known areas. If there is no other place to operate on the band, then
>> we need to take the time to carefully discern if there is on-going
>> operation in those areas before assuming the bandwidth is clear and
>> then claiming it temporarily for our RTTY transmissions.?
>>
>> With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the
>> surface, this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in
>> reality, I have an issue with this notion of working around their
>> ?watering hole? during a contest. During normal operations, I agree
>> with the general principle of making sure a frequency is clear before
>> we claim it and honestly do make every attempt to adhere to that. But
>> also, there is an actual rule that no station can ?own? a frequency.
>> Just because it is a well know and well advertised ?watering hole?,
>> this does not guarantee that users of that mode will have
>> interference free use of it at all times. There is nothing special
>> about those JT modes, or any other mode, that gives it special
>> privileges or makes then exempt from those rules. When I choose to
>> respond to some of those ?too many contest? rants, although this may
>> seem rude to some people, I make it clear to them that if someone
>> promised that you would have interference free access to any mode on
>> any band any time you want it, they lied to you!
>>
>> The bottom line is that I do not thing we are being unreasonable.
>> Amateur radio is a recreational past time (no matter what the EMCOMM
>> people tell you!) and working the JT modes is a choice some chose to
>> make within the hobby. What I resent is the suggestion that I MUST
>> work around them all of time.
>>
>> In his next letter, Ed wrote:
>>
>> ?As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take
>> today's thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK
>> and JT gathering frequencies.?
>>
>> OK, I admit to taking credit (blame?) for starting that line
>> reactions. But let?s be clear, I was not admonishing him for
>> suggesting that we should steer clear of the JT frequencies, it was
>> because he claimed that by avoiding them, it did not adversely affect
>> his score. Obviously he thought I was being a bit harsh, but I think
>> the general consensus here is that his statement was ludicrous. If he
>> found my ?less-than-subtle? approach to be rude, I have to believe
>> that sooner or later someone else would have said something that
>> would have ended up with the same end result.
>>
>> A frequent theme of these post-contest posts are that we need to
>> share the bands. I am all for that, 100%. When that is said however,
>> it is usually addressed to the people doing the contesting, not the
>> people complaining about so-called ?unfair? contest behavior. Well
>> now let me turn the coin over. Claiming a particular frequency for
>> your own personal mode of choice and expecting to have interference
>> free access to it any time you want is not sharing!
>>
>> 73, de Scott N0IU _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:52:41 -0800
> From: Mark Perrin <n7mq@comcast.net>
> To: "ed@w0yk.com" <ed@w0yk.com>
> Cc: "Thomas F. Giella W4HM" <thomasfgiella@gmail.com>,
> "<RTTY@contesting.com>" <RTTY@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] LIDs
> Message-ID: <20B4E2BC-2E3A-4648-A23E-251DD90F6478@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Bravo, Ed!
>
>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 11:09 PM, "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com> wrote:
>>
>> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
>> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
>> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
>> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
>> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>>
>> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
>> "LIDs" were replaced by recognition of good operating and positive
>> contributions. How many of us remember the A1 Operators Club (I may not
>> have the name exactly right) that the ARRL sponsored years ago? This was a
>> formal recognition of who we thought were good operators. Celebrating good
>> operating will be many fold more beneficial than denigrating each other
>> publicly.
>>
>> As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's
>> thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering
>> frequencies. All the subsequent posts chastised Thomas for his view.
>> Contrarily, when I read his post prior to all the backlash, my reaction was
>> "Wow, this is a breath of fresh air in our protracted debate about RTTY
>> QRMing of JT65 operations." I'm really glad he spoke up with that
>> perspective.
>>
>> In fact, I had composed a very similar posting myself, but decided against
>> perpetuating a thread that I felt had already spun way out of bounds. Now,
>> I regret not sharing my perspective. Maybe I'll retrieve it and send.
>>
>> BTW, I'm not against disagreement. I'm against aggressively attacking
>> another perspective. And, I really dislike aggressively attacking the
>> person in the process. It's much more effective to express disagreement by
>> articulating the value of your own perspective. I also like to identify the
>> value in someone else's opinion, especially when I initially have a negative
>> reaction to what they express. I'm often rewarded with a new and deeper
>> understanding of the issue on the table.
>>
>> I challenge all of us who enjoy RTTY operations to set an example for the
>> rest of our hobby and increase the amount of celebrating the positive rather
>> than sniping about what we perceive as negative or "wrong" with someone
>> else's view.
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 145, Issue 19
> *************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|