Subj: Re: [RTTY] QUESTION.
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: 13-04-02 8:29:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: <A HREF="mailto:k4sb@mindspring.com";>k4sb@mindspring.com</A>
To: <A HREF="mailto:RTTY@contesting.com";>RTTY@contesting.com</A>
Sent from the Internet (Details)
AMeyer3565@aol.com wrote:
> NOW THAT THE ARRL HAS OKAYED P5 FOR SSB ONLY, I THINK THE ARRL SHOULD TAKE
A
> OTHER LOOK AT THE YEMEN STATIONS THAT THEY HAVE REFUSED.
> WHAT DO YOU THINK
>
> 73 ES DX...ALEX.... W6ZX
---------------------------------
I belive Alex is on the ball here. But, also don't think it will ever
happen. If you read the current ARRL announcement regarding its OK for
SSB ( but not RTTY ) and then read the 7O version, you will find very
marked differences in the wording. For example, in previous OKs,
you'll always see "proof of license received", and similar remarks.
There is absolutely no doubt that the 7O operation was "approved by
local authorities and was done with their full knowledge". Why then is
it different from the P5?
This announcement takes me back to the mid 60s when Don Miller had
several of his trips trashed because he was refusing to work the "old
boys top of the honor roll" which existed at that time. Now if I could
work him with a Heathkit running 100 watts to a TA-33 Jr., you can
damn well believe he could hear those KW W1s calling.
It is also interesting that the ARRL is sanctioning an operator who,
according to them, is willfully violating the terms of his license by
operating RTTY.
The whole thing smells of politics and pressure. But again, it isn't
the first time.
73
Ed
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/list
Thanks for the reply.
73 es DX.....ALEX...W6ZX.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
|