At 11:37 PM 1/3/2006, IK2DZN - Claudio Astorri wrote:
>Hi Tom,
I'm not Tom but please allow me to respond anyway.
>I am a keen LOW POWER (not QRP) guy but, as you expected, I think that your
>way of treating the "QRP Thing" is more than unacceptable.
>If we'd follow your very bad example we could very easily state:
>
>1) QRO stations are not happy enough with strong signals; they put on the
>air the widest signals.
Nonsense.
> It seems either they want to save on linear
>amplifiers (again, no money for a good one?...) or they confuse the
>processor gain with the power gain of their transceivers...
More nonsense.
>More power should mean more responsibility on the width, shouldn't it?!?
No. In the US at least, all stations are held to the same standards
regarding bandwidth. A QRP station a kilometer away splattering can
be highly annoying.
>2) QRO stations are the ones giving their callsigns faster and faster. What
>does it mean if you have a strong signal? Does it mean that other hams'
>brain should run faster just for yourself?!?
No, it means that a strong signal is easier to copy than a crummy
one, and information can be sent faster as a result. Surprised you
didn't know that.
>Clearness and courtesy have nothing to do with a strong signal, come on...
Agreed.
>3) QRO stations are normally lazy.
Would "lazy" include those QRO ops who have built their own
amplifiers? Have you ever built a legal-limit amplifier. The word
"lazy" does not apply, trust me.
>They occupy their frequency for hours and
>don't scan the bands; are they king of the frequencies they occupy?
Ummm... yes. So what? Is occupying a frequency in a legal manner
wrong? Is there a time limit in Italy? There isn't in the USA.
>QRO doesn't mean you are a good operator and that you take the best score
>for your time on the air.
QRO alone doesn't make one a good operator, it just shows more
dedication to good communications. Would you say a QRP operator is
more interested in communicating or more interested in bragging about
his crummy signal being heard somewhere?
>
>So, Tom, you see... Does this bring to somewhere?!?
Not that I can tell.
>One thing I also do not agree with you is the QSL thing.
>The QSL reply is a COURTESY matter; if they do not send the stamp reply via
>bureau but REPLY!
I have QSLed by paper for years and now do it by LOTW. Anyone who
sends an SASE gets a paper QSL. Anyone who sends a paper QSL with no
SASE gets a warm feeling. Good enough?
>The next time I work you in a contest I'll repeat and spell my
>callsign/LOWPOWER 10 times occupying your frequency... ;-)
In the USA we call that jamming. What a great role model you are.
>Thanks.
>
>Claudio Astorri, IK2DZN
You're welcome.
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|