Dear Consult,
Now I got many mail from someone who want send it to "cq-contest
@tgv.com" I don't know why I can receive it ( These mail send to cq-consult
@tgv.com, not me?) I don't delete these mail now. cause I don't know
maybe it important for "cq-contest@tgv.com"
Please reply me, What's happening now? Now I have more than20
mail which want to send to "cq-contest@tgv.com" like this
Please help me.
u3501169
On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Rich L. Boyd wrote:
>
> I was behind on reading my reflector mail. Now I know why W3LPL kept
> asking me on the repeater if I had any problem with rednecks during the
> phone sprint on 80!
>
> For some reason I didn't have any problem with them, nor did I in SS
> phone where I worked 1,250 guys on 80 phone. My perception of sprint
> phone has been that with everyone moving around I don't find myself
> around long enough to be harassed much. If I find a particular frequency
> is crappo I slide left or right until I find something good to work or a
> clearer frequency to use. I don't spent more than a few seconds
> pondering the nature of the problem with that frequency. At least in
> sprints you can't afford that kind of time.
>
> It seemed to me that almost all the sprint phone activity was in the
> 3820-3850 range. I didn't hear much in the way of "regular" QSOs going
> on in that relatively small slice of spectrum dring the 60 minutes or so
> some of us (sprint phone guys) decided to make some QSOs there.
>
> Sprint phone is a very frequency agile activity. Bad frequency? No
> problem, slide this way or that 'til there's something good. I'm never
> on one frequency long enough to much bother anybody, and if they want the
> frequency, it's theirs, I'm gone.
>
> I personally had a good time with this sprint phone, after the
> frustrations and distractions that led to a 30-minute late start. I
> agree, the conditions were not very good -- 20 was really long early and
> 40 was similar. Banging through the broadcast QRM on 40 phone is
> standard fare in sprint phone and you just work with it; part of the
> challenge of this particular contest. As with 80, we're only on 40 a
> little while and we can handle it.
>
> I only made a couple QSOs above 3850 and it was clear to me that lower in
> the band was a better place because of all the non-sprint activity above
> 3850. But I found there were plenty of guys to work below that, where
> the ragchewers didn't seem to be, and plenty of holes to CQ on if I
> couldn't find a new callsign to work.
>
> I think the idea of using 160 instead of 80 is an interesting one, tho.
>
> Other than the conditions, it seemed to me that maybe the activity was
> down on this sprint, but maybe I'm wrong. 73
>
> Rich Boyd KE3Q
>
|