CQWW & 7 MHz - A Suggestion

GW4BLE at aol.com GW4BLE at aol.com
Fri Nov 8 17:30:55 EST 1996

In a message dated 28/10/96  17:39:00,  I wrote:

>To clear up the present situation I would like to make the following
>You must *not* solicit contacts, i.e. call CQ,  on SSB below 7040 KHz.
>Working a multiplier is permitted if the station contacted was actually
>soliciting contacts, i.e. he was calling CQ. After completing the contact
>you must QSY.

Thanks to the MANY people who responded to the above; the majority
were in favour, some had reservations and suggested ammendments,
however, to keep the momentum going I  plan to make the above a Formal
Proposal to the CQWW Contest Committee.   

Normal committee procedure dictates that anyone feeling strongly against
this should make a formal ammendment to the proposal, it would then be
up to the contest committee to debate and then vote on the ammendment
to the proposal before voting on the proposal itself.  At least that's how
committee votes are taken in the UK, maybe it's different in the US of A!

73 Steve  GW4BLE

>From k7fr at ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky)  Fri Nov  8 23:17:09 1996
From: k7fr at ncw.net (Gary Nieborsky) (Gary Nieborsky)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:17:09 -0800
Subject: oh-oh an OO!
Message-ID: <199611082317.PAA13234 at bing.ncw.net>

Vanity aside.......

How many of you all out there got OO (Official Observer) notices from your
operations during CQWW CW?

I'll 'fess up to two.......one justified, one questionable.

What say?

Direct replies please, summary if any interest.

Gary K7FR

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list