[RTTY] K1N vs ARRL

[john]

what???
On 2/7/2015 7:34 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> The ARRL lawyers' position is that, if they are paying the control
> operator, they cannot deviate from the schedule unless the schedule
> deviation is announced and published in advance due to the wording of
> the regulations, so the control operator at the ARRL has to fire up
> the transmitter even if there's a station there.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bob Burns W9BU <w9bu_lists at rlburns.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2015 11:38 AM, Charles Morrison wrote:
>>
>>> K1N was there first.
>>
>> Didn't we just have a heated discussion about this a few weeks ago?
>>
>> As I recall, some posters took the position that RTTY operators should know
>> that certain frequencies are accepted watering holes for various modes and
>> are covered by gentlemen's agreements. More specifically, the stated
>> position seemed to be that that RTTY operators should know about relatively
>> fixed JT65 operating frequencies and, therefore, avoid them. If that
>> position is valid, then those same RTTY operators should know about the
>> relatively fixed ARRL bulletin operating frequencies and, therefore, avoid
>> them.
>>
>> If the concept applies to JT65, doesn't it apply to ARRL bulletins?
>>
>> I acknowledge that I may be poking at the fire.
>>
>> Bob...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>