rule 6/160 test comments

[PEMS_ST_DK at noeca.ohio.gov]

If you read the very first sentence of the ARRL 160 test rules it states
"DX to DX contacts are not permitted for contest credit".
In my mind, this means it is not a DX/international contest.
What is my motivation, as a DX station on a band where stateside
contacts are marginal, to get on all weekend with the hopes of working
a handfull of these stations ?.

Yes, the subband is too wide and unenforceable. I'd like to hear from 
ON4UN and the like from across the pond about THEIR views. My understanding
is that it is much harder for them to hear us than vice-versa because 
of regulations and BC interference . What would 
they like? Is 5khz REALLY going to make it easier to work DX ? Will
more DX be on if this window is enforced ? Do DX stations have the power
to disqualify stateside by puttting those calls in the log ?

What about two nights like this. Friday - stateside to stateside ONLY
Saturday DX to stateside ONLY. (tongue in cheek)

How about two weekends or a whole week ?


>From gclark at cel.cummins.com (Clark)  Wed Dec  7 12:49:32 1994
From: gclark at cel.cummins.com (Clark) (Clark)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 07:49:32 EST
Subject: AA4NC ARRL 160
Message-ID: <9412071249.AA14663 at cel.cummins.com>



>From Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM  Wed Dec  7 17:10:00 1994
From: Skelton, Tom" <TSkelton at engineer.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Skelton, Tom)
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 94 09:10:00 PST
Subject: OO report from SS Phone?
Message-ID: <2EE5ECA0 at admin.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>


{trying again ... mail failure previous time}

Did anyone else get an OO report from N D 8 V  during
SS phone?  I called the guy on the phone and he said he
told me he sent out 35 OO reports to SS contesters.
He was operating SSTV on 14.233 and apparently
I was on 14.236 at the time.

I'll post the saga of my phone conversation with him
(ND8V) shortly.  However, it HAS to be a violation of
the ARRL's OO purpose and misuse of funds for his
personal vendetta that became obvious during the
course of our conversation.

Besides, I don't think our ARRL Pres would really
appreciate this guy calling all contesters "assholes."
(Yep, that's a quote!)

73, Tom WB4iUX (Tom.Skelton at ClemsonSC.NCR.COM)

>From Christopher James Polena" <polenach at student.msu.edu  Wed Dec  7 14:52:51 1994
From: Christopher James Polena" <polenach at student.msu.edu (Christopher James Polena)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:52:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <9412071452.AA10889 at student4.cl.msu.edu>

SET NOMAIL

>From DFREY" <HARRIS.DFREY at IC1D.HARRIS.COM  Wed Dec  7 13:07:08 1994
From: DFREY" <HARRIS.DFREY at IC1D.HARRIS.COM (DFREY)
Date: 07 Dec 1994 08:07:08 EST
Subject: OO reports during SS phone
Message-ID: <QCY2.DFREY.8276.1994 12 0708070807>


       Thanks to all who responded:
       W6XR/2, KO0U/4, AA5BT/G3NMX, NI6T, K9GS, K5FUV, AG9A, KM9P, K6XO, and
       KS1G.

       The OO notice reads:

       6:10 (PM?) EST Nov 19, 1994  14.232 kHz SSB  Your RST 59.
       Broad signal.  Causing Interference.

       Remarks: "The freq at 14.233 was busy you came on .232 and QRM to SSTV
       on 233 contests dont change The Rules."

       ref: 97.101

       Signed,  (unreadable)  ND8V


       Running 125W, I'm probably not going to knowingly and purposely call
       CQ on an already busy SSTV frequency.  With short skip, the victim was
       probably another 9.

       Here and on certain places on 75M, I have observed the owners/lessees
       of these frequencies hang around quietly waiting for someone to call
       CQ, and then blast the contester for being so rude to use their
       frequency. If you happen to be the Nth subject of such treatment,
       their bilious blandishments elicit less than courtly comments from the
       victim....

       I'll file it with the other SSB QSLs.


       Dick,  K4XU   dfrey at harris.com