[CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It

[Bill Turner]

At 11:37 PM 1/3/2006, IK2DZN - Claudio Astorri wrote:

>Hi Tom,

I'm not Tom but please allow me to respond anyway.



>I am a keen LOW POWER (not QRP) guy but, as you expected, I think that your
>way of treating the "QRP Thing" is more than unacceptable.
>If we'd follow your very bad example we could very easily state:
>
>1) QRO stations are not happy enough with strong signals; they put on the
>air the widest signals.

Nonsense.

>  It seems either they want to save on linear
>amplifiers (again, no money for a good one?...) or they confuse the
>processor gain with the power gain of their transceivers...

More nonsense.


>More power should mean more responsibility on the width, shouldn't it?!?


No. In the US at least, all stations are held to the same standards 
regarding bandwidth. A QRP station a kilometer away splattering can 
be highly annoying.


>2) QRO stations are the ones giving their callsigns faster and faster. What
>does it mean if you have a strong signal? Does it mean that other hams'
>brain should run faster just for yourself?!?


No, it means that a strong signal is easier to copy than a crummy 
one, and information can be sent faster as a result. Surprised you 
didn't know that.


>Clearness and courtesy have nothing to do with a strong signal, come on...

Agreed.


>3) QRO stations are normally lazy.


Would "lazy" include those QRO ops who have built their own 
amplifiers? Have you ever built a legal-limit amplifier. The word 
"lazy" does not apply, trust me.

>They occupy their frequency for hours and
>don't scan the bands; are they king of the frequencies they occupy?

Ummm... yes. So what? Is occupying a frequency in a legal manner 
wrong? Is there a time limit in Italy? There isn't in the USA.


>QRO doesn't mean you are a good operator and that you take the best score
>for your time on the air.

QRO alone doesn't make one a good operator, it just shows more 
dedication to good communications. Would you say a QRP operator is 
more interested in communicating or more interested in bragging about 
his crummy signal being heard somewhere?

>
>So, Tom, you see... Does this bring to somewhere?!?

Not that I can tell.


>One thing I also do not agree with you is the QSL thing.
>The QSL reply is a COURTESY matter; if they do not send the stamp reply via
>bureau but REPLY!

I have QSLed by paper for years and now do it by LOTW. Anyone who 
sends an SASE gets a paper QSL. Anyone who sends a paper QSL with no 
SASE gets a warm feeling. Good enough?



>The next time I work you in a contest I'll repeat and spell my
>callsign/LOWPOWER 10 times occupying your frequency... ;-)

In the USA we call that jamming. What a great role model you are.

>Thanks.
>
>Claudio Astorri, IK2DZN

You're welcome.

73, Bill W6WRT