Penis envy

[Waltk at PICA.ARMY.MIL]

BUO, et al, complain:

>Attempting to hold unassisted ops up to ridicule as Jeff does
>and seeking to move us all towards a packet assisted class because a very few
>people cheat, is to deny the important difference between the two classes.
>Perhaps if the new class had been called multi-op limited, we might view
>it differently. As Jeff says, packet assisted ops can weigh their performance
>against the great multi-op efforts.

Once again you show this incredible ability to take flying leaps
in a single bound. From a discussion as to why SOA is a "Real MENs"
sport as much as single-op-macho, to the comparison to multi-op. How
do you make that leap?  It is NOT multi-op.  I have not yet perfected
the ability to clone AR from a piece of his nose. But, when I do, you can
be certain I won't tell anybody about it for fear you will create,
yet another category category (YACC), that being Single-Op-AR. But, the
news will inevitably leak out about my new secret weapon. To be fair
CQ will have to create the Single-Op-Menudo class to compensate for
this freudian, penis-envy.  Multi's would only be allowed to hire guns
like sugar jonny, no ARs would be allowed! With pandora's box wide open
you'll have to create a single-op-hobo (SoHo) class to appease the
multitudes on 75M. Single-op-judge (he cometh) will be reserved for
special use on 3830. Nieitzche once said: "God is dead."
What is CQ gonna do about that? Create yet another niche/class?

You spake of cheating? Sheesh, someone must've really pissed you off,
Dave.  The cheaters were there years ago, they are there now, & will
be forever. They run gas, watch packet, listen on 2M, invite buddys
over to help do more than just climb towers, call for pizza delivery,
watch jane fonda videos or listen to AC/DC before the test, and on,
and on, ad vomitum.  Accept it and move on.

Singer has the right idea, I second his preposition:

>In all fairness to the unsophisticated
>ops who complain about their personal disadvantages, maybe we should create a
>new class, "Single Op Basic" The SOB would not only be prohibited from
>looking at ANY computer screen, but he would be required to submit
>handwritten logs and dupe sheets, have tube finals in his exciter, have a
>manual tune amp, no digital or vhf equipment in sight, and be forced to make
>dinner for himself!  :]
......................................................................
73 de Walt Kornienko  -   K2WK          Internet:  waltk at pica.army.mil
DX PacketCluster:  K2WK > W3MM  (FRC)   Packet: K2WK at N2ERH.NJ.USA.NOAM
"... Relax", said the nightman.  "We are programmed to receive."
"You can check out any time you like. But, you can never leave."-Eagles
	  Y'all have a good week, I'm goin' fishin'...wk  8O)=
______________________________________________________________________

>From pub703 at idptv.idbsu.edu (Rod Greene)  Fri Sep 23 20:35:59 1994
From: pub703 at idptv.idbsu.edu (Rod Greene) (Rod Greene)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 13:35:59 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Vertical Ant. phasing Box Evaluation
Message-ID: <m0qoGPY-0000TnC at idptv.idbsu.edu>

I'm looking for experiences and recommendations for the phasing of two and
four vertical antennas. What have you used that works well for 2 and 4
square arrays? I have just installed a second Hy-Tower vertical (66ft
spacing) and would like to run them: (1) In and out of phase on 40 and 80,
(2) Cardiod on 80. The choices appear to be to build a relay box and phasing
lines, or purchase either the Comtek or DX Engineeering boxes. Comtek's unit
is supposed to work with both 2 and 4 antennas, but DX-Engr. only works with
4. Any recommendations you have would be appreciated. Please reply directly
and I"ll summarize here depending upon response.  73, Rod W7ZRC
pub703 at idptv.idbsu.edu

-- 
Rod Greene, W7ZRC
InterNet: pub703 at idptv.idbsu.edu
CompuServe: 71551,2401
208.376.8136

>From McCarty, DK 'Dav" <DKMC at chevron.com  Fri Sep 23 21:00:23 1994
From: McCarty, DK 'Dav" <DKMC at chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav)
Date: 23 Sep 94 13:00:23 PDT
Subject: Observing Sprint Rules
Message-ID: <199409232000.AA28071 at portal.chevron.com>


From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To:  OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Subject:  Observing Sprint Rules
Date: 1994-09-23 14:30
Priority:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The unique rule of the NA Sprint contest is the QSY requirement
after soliciting a QSO (one kc before working anyone, five kc
before soliciting).

In the last few Sprints I have been disappointed to notice a lot
of people failing to move a full kilohertz from the frequency
they are vacating.  I hear them right away calling the next guy down, still
in my receiver passband, while I'm calling my CQ or working the guy who
answers.  And I'm not talking about people
who haven't done a Sprint before.

On CW, this is a significant decrease in the difficulty posed by the QSY
rule, as you cannot simply move to the adjacent signal.
You usually have to skip over--pass up--one or more stations.

a.  Is this practice commonplace?

b.  Is this a problem?

c.  If so, how do we fix it?

What say, guys?  Are we going to follow the rules that give
the contest its special flavor?  Fudging on the ingredients can spoil the
dish.

As for me, I'm sticking with the rule and enjoying the challenge it poses.

David K. McCarty, K5GN
dkmc at chevron.com



>From Patrick Collins <pcollins at freenet.columbus.oh.us>  Fri Sep 23 22:29:20 1994
From: Patrick Collins <pcollins at freenet.columbus.oh.us> (Patrick Collins)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 17:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ISO
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409231720.A10193-7100000 at acme>

ISO a place to operate the CQWW SSB. Like to operate the low bands.
Serious responses only.
Pat,nz4k





>From David C. Patton" <mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu  Fri Sep 23 22:28:11 1994
From: David C. Patton" <mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David C. Patton)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 16:28:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Observing Sprint Rules
Message-ID: <199409232128.AA22339 at ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu>

Dave, K5GN, brings up an interesting point about the 1 KHz QSY after
a CQ.  We all know that rule was intended to keep stations from CQing
on one frequency the whole contest.  It is the best, and most unique
part of the sprint.

But I usually don't even look at the readout (or at home at the
analog dial) when I QSY after soliciting a QSO.  I know I am guilty
of not moving a complete KHz sometimes (you told me so once Dave :>
), but not very often.  But really with tight CW filters, and
possibly analog frequency monitoring combined with my intense
concentration during the sprint, I don't pay attention to the one
KHz.

I feel OK about vacating a frequency and moving to the next stn
whether it is a full KHz or not.  I feel I have satisfied the intent
of the rule.  I do not think it is a problem.  If I decide to CQ
again immediately I do make a conscious effort to look at frequency
and move far greater than the mandatory 5 KHz.

However, if it is decided that the one KHz rule is a concrete rule
with the intent of forcing stations to move one KHz despite actual
bandwidth considerations, I will look at this issue differently.  But
will I be moving one KHz from the high end frequency of a station, or
from the zero beat frequency?  If I remove the 250hz filter, I will
be able to hear a station far more broadly, thus my one KHz move may
not be one KHz from the other station's perspective.

But I really don't want to have to look up for every QSO.

Life is too short for One KHz.

73, Dave Patton, WX3N
smile face thing here