Couldn't resist it any longer. Here are my two pence worth.
K3ZO is an operator I respect and it is always worth listening to what he
says because you may learn something. So I have thought hard about
the QRL? question he raises. As far as I can recall I have never had
a frequency fight with Fred, and if you read his original posting it is
because he says he listens on the frequency for a few seconds before CQing.
I am concerned, however, that only part of this message will be remembered
and new contesters will be taught "it's ok to open up on a frequency without
asking QRL? first, because Fred Laun says so" and the result is going to be
plenty of nasty situations on the bands.
I have no doubt, you should listen on a 'clear' frequency for a few seconds
and then send QRL? twice, separated by a few seconds. If there is a station
already running on the frequency then he/she should respond even if it means
having to ask for fills from the station being worked afterwards. I don't
like having someone try to steal the frequency I am using so I shouldn't
do it to others.
In the major contests there seems already to be a trend towards doing away with
QRL? and just blasting away with a CQ. IMHO this is extremely poor operating
and a poor advertisement for contesting. I don't think K3ZO should lend any
legitimacy to the lids who blast away without checking the frequency first.
Dave G4BUO
>From Field, Don" <field@btcentre.agw.bt.co.uk Fri Jul 21 11:56:00 1995
From: Field, Don" <field@btcentre.agw.bt.co.uk (Field, Don)
Subject: QRL?!
Message-ID: <300F89FF@btcgate.agw.bt.co.uk>
I'm astonished at what a bunch of wimps you Americans are!
I have to say, I endorse practically everything that Fred K3ZO said in his
note. I get exceedingly irritated in contests with people sending QRL? on
frequency. It often does screw up the report, especially where there is a
serial number involved (why do Reflector users think that CQWW is the only
contest there is?). There is only one sensible way to check whether a
frequency is in use, and that is to listen for 15 seconds or so. If you have
heard nothing in that time, given that even the longest contest exchange
takes only 10 seconds or thereabouts to send, then you can reasonably assume
the frequency is not in use. Occasionally you will be wrong, and that is the
time to bow out gracefully and try elsewhere. But sending QRL? just adds to
the QRM and is a sign of bad operating, impatience and lack of a receiver.
See you all in the IOTA contest! (exchange includes IOTA reference - with any
luck someone will send QRL? as you are trying to copy it ...)
73 Don
G3XTT/NK1G
(flames to field@btcentre.agw.bt.co.uk)
>From Troy Majors <troy@southwind.net> Fri Jul 21 11:24:31 1995
From: Troy Majors <troy@southwind.net> (Troy Majors)
Subject: RUFZ Paris Code Speed
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.90.950721052049.24092A-100000@onyx.southwind.net>
How do you convert PARIS code speed to WPM?
Divide by 5?
Thanks
Troy WI0R
>From James White <0006492564@mcimail.com> Fri Jul 21 13:01:00 1995
From: James White <0006492564@mcimail.com> (James White)
Subject: test message - erase me
Message-ID: <83950721120138/0006492564PK2EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
t e s t message
sorry for bandwidth
de k1zx ar
>From De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> Fri Jul 21 13:07:42 1995
From: De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> (De Syam)
Subject: "QRL"?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950721075244.404E-100000@latte.eng.umd.edu>
Hi Patrick:
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Patrick Dayshaw wrote:
> Maybe in this day
> and age power and the drive to take what one wants, when one wants it, is
> the new standard.
Patrick, I still operate using the same procedures all contesters used in
the 1950's when I started and when "QRL?" was unknown. Under those
procedures, contesting not only survived, but flourished! Maybe it's a
generational thing, but I find "QRL?" to be part of a new world, a
"politically correct" world, which I neither understand nor admire. I
take strong issue with your premise that just because I disagree with the
use of "QRL?" I am automatically inconsiderate and insensitive.
> I'm not the least bit angry with Peter...
I should hope not, because Peter Reed was just repeating what I said, and
in fact was disagreeing with it.
. rather I feel sorry that he has
> somewhere along the way lost the very essence of what Ham Radio, even the
> Radio Sport aspect, is all about.
I happen to feel that this "new think" that we have adopted has
distorted the essence of what contesting used to be.
I sure hope that no one comes through his
> front door with a .45 when he only has .22.....!
Ask someone who knows me what happened to me in 1974 when I was LU5HFI.
What you have just said is not at all humorous to me.
Very 73,
Fred Laun, K3ZO
|