soap-box on forums
Gilmore Creek Geophysical Observatory
kl7ra at icefog.gcgo.nasa.gov
Mon Nov 11 18:11:01 EST 1996
I strongly support Kirk K4RO proposal to prevent antenna/tower
subjects from being removed from this contest forum. Station
equipment is a very large part of contesting. I enjoy K7LXC's
columns and posting, but I feel that once you start splintering
this forum into "subjects" the over all flavor will degrade.
Because the "delete" key is so easy to use I wish everything even
remotely related to contesting be broadcast here. Yes even vanity
calls. I was surprised to see all the "spark-plug" calls dumped for
standard prefixes. I may change contest strategy and not spend most
of my time in the U.S. extra portion during the WPX.
The 160 meter reflector had some very good material posted by W0UN
and others that should have been broadcast here. The casual contest
operator with little interest in the band may have gotten an idea
or two (or better yet an interest!) to improve his 160 meter
In fact I even disagree with Tree preventing contest software
chatter here due to its product specific nature. I may try a
different program someday after reading something of interest. Also
I may change radios for the same reason, but doubt I would sign-on
to any radio specific group.
The secret of course is the subject line. Its very easy to delete
"subjects". It's also very easy to just sign-up, but when does it
end? I guess as Bill KM9P did with his interesting 4-sq msg you can
always post to two forums. At least I got to see it.
Rich KL7RA Flame on please, whip me like a step-child!!
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Mon Nov 11 18:29:44 1996
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:29:44 -0600
Subject: Response to DF4SA
I think I'd rather see a solution that uses better
operating skills rather than reliance on a database.
Right on (if people still say that). If you are only comfortable
at 10 wpm and you are in the "slow lids" database so that Tree
always comes back to you at 10 wpm, you'll never improve. Anyone
can recognize their own call at twice their normal copying speed,
and you can listen to the previous stuff that the fast guy sends,
and you know what he is going to send you (if you can mentally add
one to the previous serial number). Nobody is born with 40 wpm CW
ability, you get there and beyond by being constantly challenged.
So yeah, use contests as a way to improve your own CW ability, not
just to slow down the speedsters.
Derek "still being challenged" AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
>From jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) Mon Nov 11 18:45:29 1996
From: jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) (John Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:45:29 -0500
Subject: To dupe or not to dupe..
Message-ID: <199611111845.NAA15480 at sable.cc.vt.edu>
At 09:18 AM 11/11/96 -0400, Bill Coleman AA4LR wrote:
>If you are running stations, it would appear your best alternative is to
>go ahead and work them (even in SS). While S & P, giving worked before
>information can sometimes save you a little bit of time, but only after
>half the exchange has already been given (by the running station).
Maybe I am missing something in this debate, but I find simply sending or
receiving B4 in cw is fast and has a side benefit. In the early hours of
this year's SS CW test, suffering from intense fatigue from a full day of
tower work, and having been largely inactive on CW for nearly a year, I
miscopied a couple of the calls. When I later called them (for the second
time) they send the dupe msg, which prompted me to search my worked log for
callsigns with one letter different, make the change, and thus save a couple
of q's in my log. If they had just worked me as a dupe, I would have been
left holding some invalid q's.
John K4IQ (was WD4MUR)
More information about the CQ-Contest