[CQ-Contest] Re: [Dx] Lets change phonetics

[tombaugh]

If you think that's tough... You'd be shocked at how many people invert AE
to EA.
EMphasis on AMERICA echo usually did the trick

Tom Baugh
AE9B
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Blakely <chris.blakely at verizon.net>
To: <contest at qth.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: [Dx] Lets change phonetics


>
> The biggest problem I had this weekend was that once the DX op had
> determined in his mind that I was a stateside call they very often
> substituted K,W for the A in my call.  Not to many N's but it was apparent
> that Alpha at the beginning of the call was not something they were used
to
> hearing or the mind plays funny games in the heat of battle.
>
> Chris, AB1R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Bill at ng3k.com>
> To: <contest at qth.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>; <dx at qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: [Dx] Lets change phonetics
>
>
> >
> > It's pretty well known that the human mind tends to
> > "fill in" gaps in what the ear has taken in.   If
> > that's true, then it may be the case that short
> > phonetics ending in vowels are not the best choice.
> > If you've just worked a guy with "alpha" in his call
> > and now you work someone with "delta", but the "delt"
> > is obscured by QRM, your mind may tend to hear "alpha"
> > again.  A process akin to this may account for some
> > of the problems reported here.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill/NG3K
> >
> >
> > --
> > CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> > Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From K0HB H. Brakob" <HHBrakob at msn.com  Thu Nov  1 16:03:07 2001
From: K0HB H. Brakob" <HHBrakob at msn.com (K0HB H. Brakob)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:03:07 -0000
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [3830] CQWW SSB AA4V/KP2 M/S HP
References: <200110301446.JAA1898910 at www02.hway.net> <06c401c16156$198346c0$62f1a118 at tampabay.rr.com> <3BE14DD2.3818851B at gte.net> <3BE15CDE.98640260 at gte.net>
Message-ID: <007601c162ef$10fff440$9b2d1fcc at bigguy>


The "suspected SWL" would not be affected by that rule, since
his license was never suspended, revoked,  surrendered, or
subject to any cease and desist order.

FCC simply declined to renew it, which might amount to the
same thing, but is not included in the language of the rule.

Therefore, he could operate under third-party rules.

(Don't shoot the messenger)

(©¿©)  73, de Hans, K0HB



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Wetjen" <wd4ahz at gte.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: [3830] CQWW SSB AA4V/KP2 M/S HP


>
> What I posted, was off the top of my head.
>
> The following was also brought to my attention ...
>
> 97.115(b)(2)
>
>
> (b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:
>
> (2) The third party is not a prior amateur service licensee whose
> license was revoked; suspended for less than the balance of the
> license term and the suspension is still in effect; suspended for
the
> balance of the license term and relicensing has not taken place; or
> surrendered for cancellation following notice of revocation,
> suspension or monetary forfeiture proceedings. The third party may
> not be the subject of a cease and desist order which relates to
> amateur service operation and which is still in effect.


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com