[CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation

[garyk9gs]

You're missing the point that he (the ZD7) was not in the contest so saying he should S&P is not relevant. 


73-Gary K9GS 
-------- Original message --------From: Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com> Date: 3/16/17  3:36 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation 
IMO, it would have been far better for him to S&P than to tie up the 
part of the band that those with smaller stations or those on the west 
coast can use to call CQ.

As to Ranko's comments supporting interleaved CQs -- he's thinking only 
for the big guns, letting the smaller stations only S&P. I don't 
consider that a reasonable position. Indeed, I firmly support Frank, 
W3LPL, the owner of another superstation. This is the same respect and 
consideration for others that causes GOOD hams to choose radios that 
occupy the minimum bandwidth and always tweak their stations to be as 
clean as possible.

73, Jim K9YC

On Thu,3/16/2017 12:34 PM, garyk9gs wrote:
> In this case, split was a great idea.  He was high in the band and the 
> impact on others was minimal.  Much better to work split than to have 
> him go QRT in frustration. 


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest