Well, some rigs just cannot do QSK, and that means you are always going to
hear complaints like this. And, yes, these folks without QSK are not LIDs
just because of their station equipment limitations.
>Besides isn't CW (morse code) going to be history soon anyway?
It will become history for new ops that cannot or will not learn code. I
doubt these ops will be a majority of the active ham community in the next
few decades. Thus, IMNSHO, CW will be very active for a long time.
73, Keith NM5G
-----Original Message-----
From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Gudguyham@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:18 PM
To: jkearman@att.net; amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] 87A vs. IC-PW1
In a message dated 2/22/2006 1:53:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jkearman@att.net writes:
If a DX station is listening on or close to his frequency and has a pileup,
which is the usual case in a contest, you have to be able to hear when the
DX goes back to someone -- you, for example. If I had a buck for every time
I've heard a DX station go back to someone who then proceeded to dump his
call in again because he didn't use QSK, I could afford a new Alpha.
Good point, I indeed have heard just what you mention here but, I would not
go so far as to call someone a LID if they don't use QSK. You all can tout
QSK all you want, but calling someone a LID for not using it is totally
uncalled for. Besides isn't CW (morse code) going to be history soon
anyway?
Pretty soon the companies will delete QSK from their rigs. Hi Hi
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|