[CQ-Contest] 80M DX window???

[Leigh S. Jones]

I'm comfortable with the DX Window, and do not wish to see it
weakened.

I'm uncomfortable when I see customs and habits defended in an
indefensible manner.  My concern is that encouraging DXers to
believe that they have a "window" reserved for themselves by
gentleman's agreement will lead to strife, i.e., belief that anyone
who may happen to transmit in the DX window must be violating
the gentleman's agreement, therefore he must not deserve treatment
befitting a gentleman.

We're seeing examples of this strife in the opinions expressed on
the reflector in this thread.  Part of the reason is that the custom
of
leaving the low end of 75 to DXers makes less sense during
contests that generate a great deal of band congestion.  Frankly, I
believe that a small number of "contests" override all customary
and habitual bandplans by the very weight of their levels of
participation.  To declare that the DX window should be thought
of as inviolate during these contests actually weakens the concept
of a DX window by associating it with indefensible levels of greed.

It's a little like hearing that the Texas Cattleman's Association has
a gentleman's agreement in effect that Texas shall be a sheep free
zone.  Now, I'm in favor of cattle.  I find sheep displeasing as food.
A personal preference.  But, I'm going to be very careful about how
I encourage the cattlemen to defend Texas against sheep.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 80M DX window???


> At 07:21 AM 11/19/02 -0800, you wrote:
> >If we allow the use of prejudicial language to dominate our
> >thoughts we'll never learn to think clearly.  I don't disagree
> >with what you've written, except that I don't believe that
> >DX windows should be considered should be considered
> >inviolate protection against all invasions.
> >
> >How would you feel about it if you awoke tomorrow to
> >the news that a prime 45 KHz frequency segment on the
> >low end of each of 9 HF bands had been reserved by a
> >new gentlemans agreement for the exclusive use of
> >channelized narrow band FM, of course, with the clear
> >understanding that the operators who work HF NBFM
> >consider this to be an advancement of the state of the
> >art?
>
> On the other hand, carefully-designed hypotheticals can also obscure
> reality, no?
>
> >For the state of the art, the NBFM ops have banded
> >together and created this gentleman's agreement.
> >Perhaps Riley will enforce it?  It's on the band plan
> >now, after all... someone agreed on it!
>
> No, it's not on any recognized national band plan -- that
fortunately takes
> a little more democratic process to arrive at.  I don't believe that
the
> 75m DX window is on a national band plan, but I believe that the
160M one
> now is.
>
>
> >Frankly, I wouldn't call that a gentlemans agreement.  It's
> >a special interest group making unreasonable demands
> >in support of themselves.
> >
> >I don't argue that DX window is undesirable; I consider
> >it a special advantage to me personally, and to a number of
> >others it provides an even greater advantage.  But either
> >calling it a gentlemans agreement or attempting to enforce it
> >by repelling invaders with polite reminders that they should
> >stay out of the DX window damages it's existence.  Lies in
> >support of personal gain have a way of finding enemies.
>
> Lies?  Maybe it would be more comfortable if it were described as
custom?
>
> Leigh, I don't get this -- the intensity seems out of all
proportion.  Have
> you had an unpleasant personal experience with this window that
you're not
> mentioning?
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Sometimes a tower is just a tower
>
>
>