NAQP CW - the "pse qsy" contest

[docmunn at apci.net]

Jeff Bouvier wrote:
> 
> Fellow contesters,
>         Some subjects are difficult to put in type without getting some
> folks upset but that's the way it goes. I guess you can't please all the
> people all of the time but I HAVE to unload.
>         I enjoy the NAQP CW contest very much for a few reasons:
> 
> 1) it's a CW contest
> 
> 2) it's low power ( a lot less broad signals on the bands)
> 
> 3) it's 10 hours ( I turned 51 last week)  :-)
> 
>         One reason I get frustrated during this contest is the constant
> requests for qsy's to another band. I guess it was especially bad this year
> because ( I suspect ) I was the only RI station on during the contest.
> I started the contest late and decided not to put in a serious effort. I
> hate to say "no" to people so I did qsy at times for some of the requests
> and at times did not because every half dozen qso's someone would want me
> to move to some other band. It REALLY gets old very fast. Another thing I
> don't quite understand is the fact that so many are using 2 radios and they
> have to keep asking people to qsy. I was using 1 radio (my 2nd 940
> temporarily passed away), but whether I was using 1 or 2 radios does not
> matter. Requests for qsy's still break up any run I may be having and I
> really don't want to spend a contest qsy'ing every 5 minutes. Some folks
> asked me to go to bands that I knew there was no way we would make the qso
> (there was no prop to that part of the country). Others asked me to qsy
> without giving any callsign after one of my cq's. I would hit the cq button
> again and they would ask again.
>         There is only 1 guy that I did not mind qsy'ing for and we hit all
> 6 bands. I owe him big-time.
>         Now I can understand why some mults don't show up or make a brief
> appearance in some contests.
>         The above comments are not aimed at any one person and I don't want
> anyone to take offense. All I'm asking is that you imagine yourself being
> asked every 6th, or so , qso to qsy to another band.
>         Any comments are welcome but save the flames. ( I know I can leave
> the radio off but I enjoy contest operating as much as all of you)
>         73 to all,
>                 Jeff Bouvier  k1iu at ids.net
> 
> 
>  Maybe the request was not for your benefit OM? --Jim/K9VFA--

>From wr6r at ccnet.com (al crespo)  Tue Aug  6 02:52:03 1996
From: wr6r at ccnet.com (al crespo) (al crespo)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 02:52:03 0100
Subject: FCC Exposure Rules
Message-ID: <199608060251.TAA08213 at ccnet.ccnet.com>

I would suggest EVERYONE to read the actual document and not just read comments about this issue. It has the potential to create a 50 watt PEP power limit on amateur radio because greater then 95% of all hams are not going to bother with the requirements and opt out  for the lower limit and the exemption.
	It expressly does not preempt state regulation, so the FCC ducks the issue.
	Read the document- don't blow your top before you make comments on the reflector. The first reaction may make you so sick you may not want to comment.
	I sure I am glad I kept my VP2VFE license current.
				
					73,  Al

		



				73,