Robert Neece al511 at freenet.HSC.Colorado.EDU
Fri Aug 12 20:32:26 EDT 1994

To relieve the WRTC sponsors from political fallout from
an all-star voting selection system, have the ballots mailed
to a secretarial service which would tabulate the votes, and
then burn the ballots.  That way, no feathers would become
ruffled by a leak of information as to who failed to vote for whom.
The only info the sponsor would receive would be the tally.

73 de Bob, K0KR

>From Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com>  Sat Aug 13 02:32:00 1994
From: Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com> (Tom Frenaye)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 20:32 EST
Subject: Studying for the exam
Message-ID: <34940813013243/0002349723PK4EM at mcimail.com>

KR2Q had some interesting comments about his distaste for a DX station asking
for a list of 160M regulars so he could be better at getting the calls right. 
That sounded right to me at first but then I thought about how I prepare
for a contest. 

I look at last year's scores and callsigns. I've already sent out QSLs to those
worked for the first time/band. I get on the air more often and get used to the
'usuals'. I try to remember what changes in callsign patterns have happened
since the last time. In general, I study callsigns, propagation and do many dry
runs with the equipment. And there is a decided advantage for the person who
gets on in every contest, people remember him/her and call more often, and the
operator learns to recognize those who are also regulars.  If you work the
other serious operators faster, you have more time to work the casual

Is that so much different than studying a list of active 160m operator's calls?

Knowing callsign patterns, remembering who you have worked in the past, being
able to hear ???HFN and replying to GU3HFN? followed by a confirmation that
my guess (yes, guess) is correct is what makes me better or worse than the
next guy at pulling callsigns out of S-9 QRN or under S-9+40 competition. Sure
it is possible to log a QSO and not be sure the call is right, but it's my
expectation that you won't do it either - and that's what the penalties are
for when the logs are checked!  The 'punishment' (and level of checking) is
supposed to deter the guessing - and it does a very good job.

I'll never remember callsigns as well as K1ZZ or K1TO (or names as well as 
K1ZZ), I just have to work harder at it!  

73 Tom  K1KI  2349723 at mcimail.com (or K1KI at arrl.org - I think this works)

>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Fri Aug 12 21:30:46 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 20:30:46 GMT
Subject: WAE and Packet
Message-ID: <ZPmyqc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>

Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> writes:

> I am unable to bring myself to operate a contest with packet (real men 
> don't need packet).  However, it is not going to go away.
> Randy
> K5ZD at world.std.com

Randy - Keep this on file for a few years, then come back and look at it. 
It will probably fall into the same catagory as CW memory keyers, DVKs, 
computer logging, etc.
It's just another complaint about advancing technology. And just as 
important is the fact that nobody has shown packet to be an advantage, 
and if you compare top ten scores, may even be a disadvantage if depended 
on too greatly.
73 Barry


Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)

>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills)  Fri Aug 12 22:32:52 1994
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 21:32:52 GMT
Subject: MM and packet
Message-ID: <9408130232.AA24048 at astro.as.utexas.edu>

	It's my impression that most MM stations provide much more output 
        in terms of useful packet spots than they take in. 

Oh, you mean those spots that say "A51JS 14003.5 . . . . . . called us",
sometimes with the last two words missing, meaning that you go to the
posted freq and get your ears blasted by the M/M stn calling CQ CQ CQ...

Well, at least nobody has felt the need for a "no packet" category in
the Sprints...

Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu

>From Brian Bogh <0006125879 at mcimail.com>  Sat Aug 13 05:22:00 1994
From: Brian Bogh <0006125879 at mcimail.com> (Brian Bogh)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 23:22 EST
Subject: NAQP
Message-ID: <50940813042205/0006125879NA3EM at mcimail.com>

     NAQP score, it's easy to see that my low band antennas                          
      are very weak.  Hope to work you all in the phone NAQP.
     band      QSOs     points    mults
     160          0         0        0
      80         15        15       11
      40        115       115       40
      20        222       222       52
      15         36        36       18
      10          5         5        3
     TOTAL      393       393      124      SCORE: 48,732
      N7LOX, Brian.                      

>From jacques.choquette at takeone.com (Jacques Choquette)  Sat Aug 13 00:14:01 1994
From: jacques.choquette at takeone.com (Jacques Choquette) (Jacques Choquette)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 23:14:01 GMT
Subject: stop mail
Message-ID: <940813042117202 at takeone.com>

set nomail

>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Sat Aug 13 12:53:59 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 94 11:53:59 GMT
Subject: MM and packet
Message-ID: <ogTZqc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>

> 	It's my impression that most MM stations provide much more output 
>         in terms of useful packet spots than they take in. 
But it doesn't make up for the fact that you've got a handful of stations 
"hogging" the prime real estate on every band simultaneously.


Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)

>From David Scott <dascott at freenet.columbus.oh.us>  Sat Aug 13 14:13:53 1994
From: David Scott <dascott at freenet.columbus.oh.us> (David Scott)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 09:13:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9408130953.A15421-4100000 at acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>


>From James White <0006492564 at mcimail.com>  Sat Aug 13 15:25:00 1994
From: James White <0006492564 at mcimail.com> (James White)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 94 09:25 EST
Subject: Single-op Definition
Message-ID: <33940813142533/0006492564PK4EM at mcimail.com>

hmmmmmm....Randy, I gotta strongly disagree with you-despite the current
lack of ability to tell if someone is ease dropping on packett, it still is
assistance from other persons and as such has gotta be a multi-op!

RE the "its just another technological innovation that is being poo-poohed
just like memory keyers and transceivers on CW: NOPE....it is another person
or persons helping out.........its multi-op!

My view of contesting is that a set of rules is given and an operator says
how can I make the most points within the letter and spirit of these rules.
The term "one person performing all the operating" or somesuch usually
appears in the body of the single op definition. IT IS NOT someone who, like
yourself, has used his own mind to greater ability to say, listen to a
second radio.. Individuals who more of their own gray cells are to be
rewarded, not ones who use others' gray cells during the contest.

the RUN....he may opt for 20 to EU, or 80 grayline..........his call, a
judgment made by himself, not by others who share their find(s)-"holy shit
time for that ocean wave propagation on 80!"..........the single op will
live or die, win or lose by decisions made between his own headphones!


                                Jim, K1zx

...mind you, I have been enjoying Packett at our recent venture into
multi-single...but just because I like it don't mean I condone its use by
the true single op.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list