CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

To: k9yc@arrl.net, cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation
From: garyk9gs <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:35:02 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
You're missing the point that he (the ZD7) was not in the contest so saying he 
should S&P is not relevant. 


73-Gary K9GS 
-------- Original message --------From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> 
Date: 3/16/17  3:36 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com> 
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation 
IMO, it would have been far better for him to S&P than to tie up the 
part of the band that those with smaller stations or those on the west 
coast can use to call CQ.

As to Ranko's comments supporting interleaved CQs -- he's thinking only 
for the big guns, letting the smaller stations only S&P. I don't 
consider that a reasonable position. Indeed, I firmly support Frank, 
W3LPL, the owner of another superstation. This is the same respect and 
consideration for others that causes GOOD hams to choose radios that 
occupy the minimum bandwidth and always tweak their stations to be as 
clean as possible.

73, Jim K9YC

On Thu,3/16/2017 12:34 PM, garyk9gs wrote:
> In this case, split was a great idea.  He was high in the band and the 
> impact on others was minimal.  Much better to work split than to have 
> him go QRT in frustration. 


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>