CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Beware! N5RP & Malicious Interference

Subject: [CQ-Contest] Beware! N5RP & Malicious Interference
From: n5nj@att.net (n5nj@att.net)
Date: Tue Mar 9 21:49:19 1999
Paul;

Your point is well taken.  

My personal opinion of obtaining that particular 
callsign and assigning in to a ficticious club named 
that way aside for the moment, I would suggest that 
Bruce (who is one of the good guys) and everyone else 
use restraint on the air and do their level best not to 
directly confront those that get strange enjoyment over 
hassling (QRMing etc.) others.  Ignore them, QSY, even 
change bands or take a break for a while if you have to.

The on the air confrontation - that they always win - 
since you have no control over them - is what they 
seek.  Publicity such as Bruce gave to this anonymous 
jerk may be the desired goal as well.

Ignore them and they will eventually go away.  Feed 
their insanity and they come back for more.

73,
Bob N5NJ


> 
> Bob Perring <perring@texas.net> Wrote in message:
> >You seem to take personal affront to the letter sent by Bruce.
> 
> Congratulations, Bob, you score an "A" in reading for comprehension.  It
> was not so much the letter sent by Mr. Sawyer, but that it was posted to
> an international reflector rather than by private email.  BTW: Mr.
> Sawyer did send me a subsequent private email apology which has been
> humbly accepted.  It was a very nice and well written.  Mr. Sawyer is
> definitely one of the "good guys" and I'm pleased to have made his
> acquaintance.
> 
> >If the malicious interference did occur, what would you suggest?
> 
> This would certainly be a fine topic for your reflector.  While I have
> my own personal opinions on the subject, I have no interest in becoming
> involved in a discussion about this matter on your reflector.
> 
> >Do you think it better to not advise you of someone using your callsign
> in
> >a  manner unbecoming your fine reputation?  N5RP
> 
> I would have been grateful for a nice private email, which I would have
> answered promptly.  The original post to the reflector intimated that it
> was a lack of supervisory effort on my part that was responsible for the
> interference.  This malicious interference was directly linked to my
> name and callsign and sent to what I presume is hundreds of my fellow
> amateurs.
> 
> Imagine how I felt when I started receiving emails from my friends that
> my name and callsign had become associated with malicious interference,
> of which I was unaware, and that it had become the topic of discussion
> on a reflector I had never before used.
> 
> I trust this addresses your concerns.
> 
> -Paul Kluwe,  W8ZO
> 
> PS (Small world that it is, Bill Fisher's AKORN ACCESS, which hosts the
> contesting.com domain, also hosts some domains for some of my business
> interests.  I have great praise for AKORN ACCESS, and would very highly
> recommend them if any of you are looking for great internet hosting
> services.  They are first rate!)
> 
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> 


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com


>From lstrain" <lstrain@goplay.com  Tue Mar  9 22:27:23 1999
From: lstrain" <lstrain@goplay.com (lstrain)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Serial numbers in exchanges
Message-ID: <38651690.1.28477@mx1-12.onmedia.com>


I don't think that the incorrect QSO numbers in a lot of logged 
entries are the fault of the receiving station.  Several times when I 
have been SWLing during contests where QSO numbers are part of the 
report I have heard a station send the same number to two consecutive 
stations, send a decremmented number, skip forward several numbers 
and even send essentially random numbers.  Part of this may be the 
fault of using keyers with automatic number generation.  Some of it 
may be simply operator error.  In nany case, when the QSO number in 
the log of the receiving station is off by one digit, I think it 
would be safe to assume that, at least part of the time, the 
incorrect QSO number was sent by the transmitting station.  In such a 
case, it would only be fair to penalize both stations since the QSO 
is not valid unless a correct EXCHANGE of information takes place.

73
N7DF
Back on the air from New Mexico.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The coolest site for free home pages, email, chat, e-cards, movie info.. |
|               http://www.goplay.com - it's time to Go Play!              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>