[CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band

[4X4KF]

Hi Bob,
Rules are here so all of us can enjoy  Radio Amateur activity. Either 
you follow the rules or you don't.
You can't chose the rules you want to obey, or disregard  those you find 
overabundant  or interfere with you today
but are acceptable the other day when it suits you. 
Rules are here even for the "sacred" contesters. And BTW where I come 
from, every weekend
we have to cope with contesters that round the  corners to their 
benefit, using just your argument.
It is just a hobby, Bob, but for all of us.
Isn't it enough that we have to bow to the crowded band every weekend? I 
am mainly a CW operator. It wouldn't
even cross my mind to call a DXer above 7040. Why should another DXer 
use SSB  beneath 7040?
73
Michael 4X4KF





Robert Naumann wrote:

> Michael,
>
>  
>
> I think that something may have gotten lost in the translation but I 
> am fairly certain that I'll end up agreeing with you.
>
>  
>
> However, Jim's criticism of my suggestion that someone should do what 
> they want elsewhere - alleging that it is contrary to my term of 
> "anyone can use" is not correct. The fact is that there are many other 
> "roads"(bands or band segments). Those who regularly use a "road" that 
> contesters might be using at the time should just use one of the other 
> lesser-used roads and (get this!) be tolerant of others (contesters).
>
>  
>
> The problem with all of this is that the logic is being twisted so 
> that contesters are the only ones who have to be tolerant of what 
> others do at the expense of precluding what the contester wants to do. 
> Why is that? Why can't ragchewers or non-contester CW operators be 
> tolerant of an event that involves thousands of active hams all around 
> the globe for a handful of weekends a year?
>
>  
>
> Why do they get to be intolerant and demand to preclude contesters 
> from doing what they want to do? Where's the balance? So what if SSB 
> overruns the 40m CW segment for a couple of weekends? What's the harm?
>
>  
>
> There are really only two weekends (CQWW and ARRL DX) a year when SSB 
> contesting encroaches on the CW section of 40m. What about the other 
> 50 weekends? A 25:1 ratio of non-SSB-contest-time to SSB-contest-time 
> seems like a pretty good deal for non-contesters and CW ops.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> 73,
>
> W5OV
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: 4X4KF [mailto:4x4kf at iarc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:02 AM
> To: Jim Rhodes
> Cc: Robert Naumann; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
>
>  
>
> The problem with some contesters is that they think contesting
> reject rules, forgetting or  ignoring the right of non-contesters
> to rag chew  on their lawfully  assigned piece of band.
> Michael 4X4KF
>
> Jim Rhodes wrote:
>
>I have a hard time with your analogy too. First you say "that anyone 
>
>can use", then you say "do it elsewhere".
>
>Maybe the 18 wheelers exceeding the speed limit should obey the rules 
>
>of the road.
>
> 
>
>At 06:49 PM 10/30/2006, Robert Naumann wrote:
>
> 
>
>  
>
>>I find this discussion maddening.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Mal's analogy is totally without merit.
>>
>> 
>>
>>No one owns any "property" along 40th ST. It's more like a freeway that
>>
>>anyone can use. Sometimes freeways are full of 18 wheelers exceeding the
>>
>>speed limit.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Someone who wants to walk their dog, or ride in a horse and buggy ought to
>>
>>do it elsewhere.
>>
>> 
>>
>>73,
>>
>> 
>>
>>Bob W5OV
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
> 
>
>Jim Rhodes K0XU
>
>jim at rhodesend.net <mailto:jim at rhodesend.net>
>
> 
>
>Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone. 
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> 
>
> 
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1843 (20061030) Information __________
>
> 
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1845 (20061031) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com


--