Phil and all,
It's about time someone said it.
I have nothing against most of the SO2R operations and intend to run that
way myself in the future. It's just a few who are really inconsiderate and
are just thinking of their own run rate, while completely breaking the
rhythm of the other station.
Several times my CQ was answered, I sent the report, then had to sit and
wait while the other station finished their other QSO.
The same thing happens when you answer a CQ then wait a long time before
getting the report. Surely if someone sends 'CQ' they should be ready to get
that contact going right away. They are actually saying 'I am using this
frequency; please call me back and I will answer when I am ready'
Thankfully it is only a minority and maybe they are just new to SO2R; it
must be hard to get up to speed when starting.
Cheers,
John GW4SKA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>
To: "RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:41 PM
Subject: [RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just an observation, rather than any sort of criticism, but I note that
> quite a few SO2R op's were VERY slow in responding to calls and exchanges
> during this WPX. And by slow, I mean in the order of 10 seconds or more!
>
> Whilst I am not necessarily in favour of SO2R (as part of the single op
> class), I understand why you want to do it, and good luck to you.
> BUT, I really think you should be a little quicker on the replies, and
> maybe
> consider those of us on the other end.
>
> Having said that, there were a few SO2R ops that were amazing, and
> responded
> very quickly, so it can be done.
>
> Obviously, if it is your run frequency, you have the control, but I don't
> particularly like waiting too long for that TU QRZ while you work a mult
> on
> another frequency.
> When I was CQ'ing, I had some callers that were obviously busy elsewhere,
> and it really did screw up MY run on occasions when I replied to you, but
> you were busy on your run frequency. One several occasions, I sent again,
> only to hear the end of your message to me. That meant other callers tried
> to get in, figuring I wasn't going to work you, so they called over you.
>
> Did anyone else notice the delay in responses?
>
> As I said, these thoughts are just an observation, and not a criticism!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 100216-1, 16/02/2010
> Tested on: 16/02/2010 19:41:43
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|