You hit the nail right on the head. I love 160m but one thing I hate is someone
who controls the opinions of the masses to get the numbers in his favor. This
is exactly what w4zv does on "his" reflector. He spammed my personal mailbox
with requests to support the proposal (which I originally did) but when I sent
an e-mail to the reflector with my new opinion he removed the post before it
got distributed to the reflector. I now FIRMLY believe that what they want is
the complete elimination of SSB from 160m and will go to any means to reach
that goal. I am not happy about all of this. (and I do consider myself a
"Topband" afficionado.)
N4UK
Pat Collins <pat@linuxcolumbus.com> wrote:
> When one of the authors of RM-10352 does everything in his power to stop
discussion on a mailing list dedicated to 160 operators didn't you think
something was wrong?
W4ZV and K1ZM only have their own interests at heart. Remember, W4ZV said
something to the effect of "I hate SSB on 160." on the cq-contest list.
This should have been enough for anyone with 1/2 a brain to realize that
W4ZV wants 1800 to 1843 exclusive CW.
Pat N8VW
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:26:11 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Clarke
wrote :
> During the past 25 years I have operated contests on 160 meters this
> has never been a problem until now. This problem exists because of a
> small group of amateurs who want to have a prime section of the band
> to themselves to work DX on CW. We all know who those stations are and
> we have them to thank for this mess.....
>
> 73's KU8E/LID
>
>
>
> --- n4uk@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Dave,
> > I was harassed extensively last night when I made a foray below
> > 1843. I asked if the frequency was in use and then proceeded to
> > operated briefly around 1818. I was QRMed with tuning, comments, and
> > at one point a tirade by two individuals who refused to identify and
> > were relentless with comments about me not being a gentleman.I was
> > told over and over again about how this "gentlemen's agreement has
> > existed for years. I asked over and over again if I was interfering
> > with any weak signal DX and never heard that this was the case. This
> > whole bandplan situation has gotten out of hand. I now have second
> > thoughts about my support for an FCC mandated bandplan after now
> > coming to realize the overall motives and agenda. I have never
> > experienced this in past CQ 160m SSB contests. It was nearly
> > impossible to locate a good calling frequency above 1843 and here was
> > a good chunk of usable spectrum being "protected" by policemen "in
> > case" someone wanted to use it for CW. I am very disapp!
> > oi!
> > nted with the tactics of some of the "gentlemen" on top band.
> > n4uk
> >
> > "David L. Thompson" wrote:
> > > I have received several messages from Dx and USA stations telling
> > me there
> > are policemen running up and down 160 telling the stations
> > they cannot operate SSB below 1843. This has not yet been decided
> > and much
> > of the Dx cannot operate above 1850 anyway. Please help stop this
> > from
> > happening!
> >
> > This can be considered grounds for disqualification for future CQ 160
> > contests. I am busy with my daughter's wedding and have not even
> > been able
> > to get on. If I am forced to take time away from her "time" I will
> > TAKE
> > EVERY ACTION NECESSARY to insure the CQ 160 Contest is not damaged by
> > these
> > actions.
> >
> > Thanks for the assist.
> >
> > Dave K4JRB
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
> > Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
> > Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> http://sports.yahoo.com
>
>
>
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|