On 15 Dec 2004 at 8:45, Bill Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:08:16 +0000, Keith Kerr wrote:
> >I have been known to do this sometimes. I actually recall a few years
> >ago (but apologies if I am misquoting him here) Fred, K3ZO , an
> >operator whom I much admire and respect, saying this was what he did
> >and it struck me as being reasonable idea if the first CQ was a short
> >one. Sometimes a QRL? or SSB equivalent will not get an immediate
> >reply on a busy frequency if the occupant is trying to copy a
> >difficult exchange. Guess it's all a matter of balance...........
> >Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)
> It was Fred, K3ZO, who recommended a short (emphasis on short) CQ
> instead of QRL?. I thought it good advice then and still do now.
> Bill W6WRT
I think it's bad advice and rude, and here's why:
Let's say I'm trying to copy a weak UA9 who answered my CQ. Fred
comes along and does a short CQ. A loud DL answers him. He doesn't
notice the weak UA9 sending his call for the third time to me, and
doesn't hear me saying QRL on backscatter through the loud DL. He
makes the QSO and is ready for another call, still not knowing he
just usurped a frequency in use. I lost my opportunity to work the
UA9 and now have to start saying QRL QRL or CQing in Fred's face to
try to push him off my freq.
If he did a "QRL?" or just "?" all I need to do is respond with a
quick "R" rather than have the need to defend my frequency and lose
the QSO in progress. Maybe it's different on the west coast...
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: email@example.com
Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
CQ-Contest mailing list