ve4xt at mts.net
Thu Apr 2 15:12:27 PDT 2009
The problem becomes, however, when it's not clear cut: I am absolutely NOT
going to interrogate any US ham that calls me between 14150 and 14200 to be
sure they are extra class. Nor am I going to study the regulations of every
other country to police those calling me to make sure they are operating
within their specified bands. That's their problem.
However, when it is obvious -- when any mainland U.S. ham calls below 14150,
or calls on my 40m RX frequency -- I will suggest they are out of band. But
if they persist in working me, they go in the log.
I think that's a reasonable compromise.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Sacco
Sent: April-02-09 2:29 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
Please don't take this personally, but I think the attitude you express
is part of why the world is in such trouble right now.
IMO, we all must be our brother's keepers, to some extent. If I observe
someone doing something against the law, but I'm not a law enforcement
officer, it IS my job to do *something*, not look the other way.
Chad WE9V wrote:
> This brings up an interesting point. Is it really the VE's responsibility
> to know that every answer to his CQs is within their band or license
> Sure, this example is a little easier, knowing that US hams can't go below
> 14150, but what if he was on 14153 and a US general class licensee call
> him? Should he quickly evaluate every caller to see if they are approved
> operate on 14153? If you say "of course not", I ask you, what's the
> difference? In either case, the US ham is operating beyond their license
> class. Why is it the VE's responsibility to police him if under 14150 and
> not at 14153?
> Chad WE9V
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest