[CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem

[Charles Harpole]

Two band occupiers, with one band being wasted with empty 40wpm CQs, are
obvious.  I operate LOUD , so I give the empty CQers ONE call, often only
my prefix due to the short "listening time" between CQs.  No answer to my
one loud-enuf call, I move on and advise all to do same.

Sticking around to service a guy who thinks it ok to pollute one freq while
making contacts on another band only helps perpetuate the Rotten Radio
practice as it is.

The next step is to CQ on SEVERAL bands at once.  I expect this soon if not
already done.
73, Charly



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Actually, there is another item that is emerging as important, it's the
> overt attempt of the Dual CQers to package the exchanges into a format that
> suits their mode.  Faster bursts of CW with empty time in between is
> exactly
> what the goal is.  So even though it seems weird to hear CQ after CQ at 35
> -
> 40wpm with no callers and think - why doesn't he slow down?  You are only
> hearing half the story.  The other band could be running well.
>
>
>
> And the Q numbers speak for themselves  Its quite clear who most of the
> dual
> CQer skill folks are.  And congrats to them.  An unfortunate side effect of
> the their efficiency is the less skilled CW op on the other end trying to
> give them a Q.  However, their numbers don't reflect a problem of missing
> many Qs - even if they did miss some.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>



-- 
Charly, HS0ZCW