[CQ-Contest] apology for stupid remark de KH6DV

[KG6DV at cs.com]

RE: My recent knee jerk reaction and the dumb remark that resulted from it.

I obviously stand corrected.  I have gone through this band plan thought 
process before and resolved in my mind that the committee must have had 
considerable lobbing for competing interests and conflicts between mode 
interests must have been considerable.  My first reaction to some of the 
elements of the various band plans was to ask the question "dont these guys 
operate much" however, after thinking about it I realized nobody should envy 
these guys their task. No matter what they do somebody is going to complain.  

While I may not agree with several of the mode decisions the committee made, 
I do have to admit that these objections come from a narrow interest base 
(contesting and dx'ing) and dont reflect the majority band user profile.  
Again, the committee had a daunting task and Im very sure they wrestled with 
the dilemma that competing interests created at length.  For the health and 
future of the hobby, room does have to be made for new modes, this obviously 
will have to be made at the expense of existing modes, thats evolution.  I 
apologize to those who were involved in the process who once again were 
called on to defend their actions because of my ill thought out comment.  Im 
pretty sure you have gone through this situation many hundreds of times 
before and didnt need another thoughtless assault.  

As for the comment that maybe I dont hear the full extent of the activity on 
160 meters, and that maybe I dont operate all that much, Not accurate.
Every geographic region hears different patterns of band usage. I hear a lot 
of north America activity. A low level station on the East coast of the U.S. 
or Canada is easily copied here. I dont hear what is nodoubt considerable 
activity from Europe that north America stations hear but, Caribbean and 
south American stations are well heard.  I also hear the massive number of 
Asiatic Russian phone stations that clutter up the portion of 160 meters 
above 1840.  As for the statement that maybe Im not active enough, My wife 
would take exception to that.  My log shows a little more than 700 contacts 
in the last 60 days.  Considering that I have always had a high listen to 
transmit ratio, this would represent a pretty high level of activity.  I have 
a rack with an ICE 4 port antenna coupler. In this rack are two ITT MacKay 
synthesized receivers that scan different portions of 160 meters and two 
additional MacKay units that monitor two different portions of 80 meters.  
There are a pair of SGC SG2000'S that are connected via RS232 ports to a 
computer that monitor 10 and 14mhz.RTTY.
My Kenwood transceiver is always on and monitoring somewhere. I think this is 
a fairly high level of activity when compared to the average ham. 

The interesting thing is, that I agree with the majority of the band plan, 
and can see the reasoning behind the portion I do not agree with.  There was 
no sound basis for my recent remarks and I again apologize to all those who 
were involved in the process.  

With Aloha
Ron  KH6DV
Kaneohe Hawaii




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