[RTTY] LIDs
Salvatore Irato
iw1ayd at gmail.com
Wed Jan 7 10:14:23 EST 2015
I must acknowledge what Ed wrote!
It's imperative to associate myself with both the original Ed's
writing and the shot made by Mark.
Bat I also have to enforce Mark's shotted judgment even if I am a poor
and alone soul.
Bravo, bravissimo! Giusto, giustissimo! Ed.
That is quite heartily translated by google, not myself, as:
Bravo, very good! Right, absolutely right! Ed.
Salvo iw1ayd
PS It's not anyway connected to Figaro. For whom may be concerned.
>Bravo, Ed!
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 11:09 PM, "Ed Muns" <ed at w0yk.com> wrote:
>
> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>
> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:52 PM, <rtty-request at contesting.com> wrote:
> Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
> rtty at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rtty-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rtty-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. LIDs (Ed Muns)
> 2. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Scott Schultz)
> 3. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Salvatore Irato)
> 4. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Larry)
> 5. Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency (Joe Subich, W4TV)
> 6. Re: LIDs (Mark Perrin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 03:09:12 -0400
> From: "Ed Muns" <ed at w0yk.com>
> To: <RTTY at contesting.com>
> Cc: "'Thomas F. Giella W4HM'" <thomasfgiella at gmail.com>
> Subject: [RTTY] LIDs
> Message-ID: <409F5479582C4874B50EF26EE894E713 at X2201>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>
> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
> "LIDs" were replaced by recognition of good operating and positive
> contributions. How many of us remember the A1 Operators Club (I may not
> have the name exactly right) that the ARRL sponsored years ago? This was a
> formal recognition of who we thought were good operators. Celebrating good
> operating will be many fold more beneficial than denigrating each other
> publicly.
>
> As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's
> thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering
> frequencies. All the subsequent posts chastised Thomas for his view.
> Contrarily, when I read his post prior to all the backlash, my reaction was
> "Wow, this is a breath of fresh air in our protracted debate about RTTY
> QRMing of JT65 operations." I'm really glad he spoke up with that
> perspective.
>
> In fact, I had composed a very similar posting myself, but decided against
> perpetuating a thread that I felt had already spun way out of bounds. Now,
> I regret not sharing my perspective. Maybe I'll retrieve it and send.
>
> BTW, I'm not against disagreement. I'm against aggressively attacking
> another perspective. And, I really dislike aggressively attacking the
> person in the process. It's much more effective to express disagreement by
> articulating the value of your own perspective. I also like to identify the
> value in someone else's opinion, especially when I initially have a negative
> reaction to what they express. I'm often rewarded with a new and deeper
> understanding of the issue on the table.
>
> I challenge all of us who enjoy RTTY operations to set an example for the
> rest of our hobby and increase the amount of celebrating the positive rather
> than sniping about what we perceive as negative or "wrong" with someone
> else's view.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:24:27 -0600
> From: "Scott Schultz" <schultz0530 at gmail.com>
> To: <RTTY at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <3D78F8CEF0EF42E0A69C362F944AE354 at RadioRoom>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Ed W0YK wrote:
>
> ?Operationally, the safest thing to do is simply avoid these small, known areas. If there is no other place to operate on the band, then we need to take the time to carefully discern if there is on-going operation in those areas before assuming the bandwidth is clear and then claiming it temporarily for our RTTY transmissions.?
>
> With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the surface, this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in reality, I have an issue with this notion of working around their ?watering hole? during a contest. During normal operations, I agree with the general principle of making sure a frequency is clear before we claim it and honestly do make every attempt to adhere to that. But also, there is an actual rule that no station can ?own? a frequency. Just because it is a well know and well advertised ?watering hole?, this does not guarantee that users of that mode will have interference free use of it at all times. There is nothing special about those JT modes, or any other mode, that gives it special privileges or makes then exempt from those rules. When I choose to respond to some of those ?too many contest? rants, although this may seem rude to some people, I make it clear to them that if someone promised that you would have interference free access to
> any mode on any band any time you want it, they lied to you!
>
> The bottom line is that I do not thing we are being unreasonable. Amateur radio is a recreational past time (no matter what the EMCOMM people tell you!) and working the JT modes is a choice some chose to make within the hobby. What I resent is the suggestion that I MUST work around them all of time.
>
> In his next letter, Ed wrote:
>
> ?As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering frequencies.?
>
> OK, I admit to taking credit (blame?) for starting that line reactions. But let?s be clear, I was not admonishing him for suggesting that we should steer clear of the JT frequencies, it was because he claimed that by avoiding them, it did not adversely affect his score. Obviously he thought I was being a bit harsh, but I think the general consensus here is that his statement was ludicrous. If he found my ?less-than-subtle? approach to be rude, I have to believe that sooner or later someone else would have said something that would have ended up with the same end result.
>
> A frequent theme of these post-contest posts are that we need to share the bands. I am all for that, 100%. When that is said however, it is usually addressed to the people doing the contesting, not the people complaining about so-called ?unfair? contest behavior. Well now let me turn the coin over. Claiming a particular frequency for your own personal mode of choice and expecting to have interference free access to it any time you want is not sharing!
>
> 73,
> de Scott N0IU
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:44:06 +0100
> From: Salvatore Irato <iw1ayd at gmail.com>
> To: rtty at contesting.com, ed at w0yk.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID:
> <CAAhLcE4U7n1Ktm4ShW7+5k+twQKyDV9DsfrO615z9Z=ezm0AMA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I agree Ed.
> Staying out of theirs - JTxx - slice could be done, quite easy. I hope
> they - JTxx - all could do the same. I wish I had do this quite
> forever.
> Sometimes I failed I know. But not for this I am a lid. cast the first
> stone who is without sin.
>
> So we have also other to do ...
>
> We have also to say this - please respect the mode/QRG slices - to all
> other OMs. I am thinking, at first, to DX expeditions still use -
> specially for the lower WARC - theirs (JTxx) claimed QRGs since
> forever.
> It is not that trivial in several ways.
>
> So x580 x740 x140 xx080 xx100 xx080 xx920 x080 are not to be used by
> DX Expeditions?
>
> All those QRGs but particularly 10140 and 18100 are the most
> endangered by JTxx all the time from the EU perspective. Quite nothing
> was done by those JTxx guys over years.
> Now that we are already reachable on this email list or others email
> lists the problem arise ... when nobody had taken care of over years
> and years of DX expeditions(?).
>
> OK, I understand and agree with the proposal not to make involuntarily
> QRM, I stress involuntarily for several good reasons. Not the last we
> have had voluntarily and willingly interferences on each DX
> expeditions.
>
> I could have wrote wrongly my ideas but this problem still remain and,
> if not, the JTxx guys would take care of it we must take care of it as
> the RTTY guys. Isn't?
>
> May I ask to change the tread title as Lids running JTxx on RTTY
> frequency. It seems more appropriate by now. Asking to others for
> changes is a must today, when somebody would not change his
> habits.There are always two sides to every coin. Starting with saying
> Lid to others doesn't seem a good way to get into a discussion. The
> final sentence seems to be is already written prior to, in this case,
> the debate.
> Nonetheless we could and should have that right and clever attitude as
> you Ed, it's understandable clever and agreeable. But we need also to
> change other "rules" and gentlemen agreements all over our tiny and
> precious world.
>
> Hope not to have harassed anyone, but things and facts out of my
> personal opinions may show "the unabridged truth".
>
> I hope we aren't wall to wall each other or the real life, ours and
> others real life - haven't teach anything after all those years of
> bits, filters and stop bits and complex decoding algorithms.
>
> Where we would get today?
>
> 73 de iw1ayd Salvo
>
> PS those QRG attribution show plainly how - xxxx? - could shape
> themselves theirs life and then cry to others.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 08:17:02 -0500
> From: "Larry" <lknain at nc.rr.com>
> To: <rtty at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <9D0F277D46DC4EEC882D61AC2554FCDD at XV2W>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> During CQWW CW activity often extends to .130 (sometimes higher) on 20, 15,
> 10. But that doesn't seem to bother RTTY or digital stations. Too many times
> I have heard a station running on an "RTTY" frequency for a long time get
> blasted by an RTTY station just start sending. Same thing on a "digital"
> frequency. As was pointed out earlier intentional QRM goes both ways. Now I
> will grant you that if I want to operate RTTY while CQWW CW is running that
> it can be difficult as the most likely place for me to find RTTY QSOs is the
> "RTTY" frequencies but that does not relieve of my responsibility to not
> cause intentional QRM.
>
> 73, Larry W6NWS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:03 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
>
>
> 1) This was an RTTY contest and an RTTY list ...
> 2) CW operators generally bail as soon as they *hear* the
> JT65/JT9 and/or PSK modes - they don't like long duration
> tones in their headsets and they *listen*.
> 3) in most cases (except 40 meters) the CW activity does not
> extend above xx.070 even in SS or CQWW CW except for a few
> thick-skulled fools who generally move because their rate
> suffers.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-06 9:44 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
>> Why are you not complaining about CW on these frequencies. During CQWW CW
>> the bands were packed all the way to xx.100.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>>
>>
>> To: Mark n2qt <n2qt.va at gmail.com>, RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
>> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
>> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:13:55 -0500
>> List-post: <rtty at contesting.com">mailto:rtty at contesting.com>
>>
>>> The other problem is often the JTx guys run SSB type bandwidths
>>
>> I understand the SSB type bandwidth/tuning in the waterfall behavior.
>> However setting that aside, there were dozens of RTTY signals dead on
>> top of JT9 and JT65 stations this weekend. The issue is that RTTY
>> operators don't know - or care - about the 48 seconds on/12 seconds
>> off/2 minute cycle of JT65/JT9. If a frequency is vacant for even a
>> second some RTTY operator will press F1 there.
>>
>> The only real solution is score reductions for those who transmit
>> (particularly those who run) below xx.0805 mark - particularly on
>> 80/20/15/10.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:08:31 -0500
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
> Message-ID: <54AD3DDF.4080504 at subich.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> > With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the
> > surface, this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in
> > reality, I have an issue with this notion of working around their
> > ?watering hole? during a contest. During normal operations, I agree
> > with the general principle of making sure a frequency is clear before
> > we claim it and honestly do make every attempt to adhere to that.
>
> What is the difference between operating in a contest and during
> "normal" times when it comes to gentlemanly operating? When a band
> is open, it is generally full of users - that applies to the JT and
> PSK "centers of activity" just as much as the broader bands. Even
> this morning when I hear (see with the P3 panadapter) no RTTY signals
> on 15 meters, there is activity in the JT65/JT9 segments. The same is
> true on true on 40, 30, 20, 17, 12 and 10 meters ... there may be very
> little RTTY activity but there a dozen or more JT-mode signals visible
> on the waterfall/P3 *per band*. Those stations don't "go away" on the
> weekend/during a contest ... just the opposite open bands are even more
> active during the weekend.
>
> There seems to be an attitude that WINLINK/PACTOR and contesting are
> the "highest and best use" of the bands and therefor contesters do not
> need to listen for other activity and that WINLINK/PACTOR can fire up
> on top of even contesters. Most amateurs would agree that attitude is
> simply *wrong*.
>
> As Ed suggested, contesters need to be aware where these other modes
> congregate. Avoid those frequencies if possible but *if you must*
> operate there, *know the characteristics of those signals* so you can
> recognize them and not treat them as noise to run roughshod over.
> Unfortunately like so many others, contesters don't appear to bother
> to learn about the characteristics or centers of activity of the non-
> mainstream modes. Perhaps it is time for contest sponsors to include
> that information in their announcements and start removing credit and
> multipliers if necessary.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-07 7:24 AM, Scott Schultz wrote:
>> Ed W0YK wrote:
>>
>> ?Operationally, the safest thing to do is simply avoid these small,
>> known areas. If there is no other place to operate on the band, then
>> we need to take the time to carefully discern if there is on-going
>> operation in those areas before assuming the bandwidth is clear and
>> then claiming it temporarily for our RTTY transmissions.?
>>
>> With all due respect Ed, here?s my problem with this. While on the
>> surface, this appears to be the ?gentlemanly? thing to do, but in
>> reality, I have an issue with this notion of working around their
>> ?watering hole? during a contest. During normal operations, I agree
>> with the general principle of making sure a frequency is clear before
>> we claim it and honestly do make every attempt to adhere to that. But
>> also, there is an actual rule that no station can ?own? a frequency.
>> Just because it is a well know and well advertised ?watering hole?,
>> this does not guarantee that users of that mode will have
>> interference free use of it at all times. There is nothing special
>> about those JT modes, or any other mode, that gives it special
>> privileges or makes then exempt from those rules. When I choose to
>> respond to some of those ?too many contest? rants, although this may
>> seem rude to some people, I make it clear to them that if someone
>> promised that you would have interference free access to any mode on
>> any band any time you want it, they lied to you!
>>
>> The bottom line is that I do not thing we are being unreasonable.
>> Amateur radio is a recreational past time (no matter what the EMCOMM
>> people tell you!) and working the JT modes is a choice some chose to
>> make within the hobby. What I resent is the suggestion that I MUST
>> work around them all of time.
>>
>> In his next letter, Ed wrote:
>>
>> ?As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take
>> today's thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK
>> and JT gathering frequencies.?
>>
>> OK, I admit to taking credit (blame?) for starting that line
>> reactions. But let?s be clear, I was not admonishing him for
>> suggesting that we should steer clear of the JT frequencies, it was
>> because he claimed that by avoiding them, it did not adversely affect
>> his score. Obviously he thought I was being a bit harsh, but I think
>> the general consensus here is that his statement was ludicrous. If he
>> found my ?less-than-subtle? approach to be rude, I have to believe
>> that sooner or later someone else would have said something that
>> would have ended up with the same end result.
>>
>> A frequent theme of these post-contest posts are that we need to
>> share the bands. I am all for that, 100%. When that is said however,
>> it is usually addressed to the people doing the contesting, not the
>> people complaining about so-called ?unfair? contest behavior. Well
>> now let me turn the coin over. Claiming a particular frequency for
>> your own personal mode of choice and expecting to have interference
>> free access to it any time you want is not sharing!
>>
>> 73, de Scott N0IU _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:52:41 -0800
> From: Mark Perrin <n7mq at comcast.net>
> To: "ed at w0yk.com" <ed at w0yk.com>
> Cc: "Thomas F. Giella W4HM" <thomasfgiella at gmail.com>,
> "<RTTY at contesting.com>" <RTTY at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] LIDs
> Message-ID: <20B4E2BC-2E3A-4648-A23E-251DD90F6478 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Bravo, Ed!
>
>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 11:09 PM, "Ed Muns" <ed at w0yk.com> wrote:
>>
>> One of the more unfortunate creations in our great hobby is the term "LID".
>> Having a 3-letter mnemonic to slander our fellow enthusiasts does not
>> advance radio sport, or ham radio in general. I'd like to see us take the
>> high road and strike "LID" from our vocabulary. That would also be a
>> symbolic gesture to strike all negative references about our constituents.
>>
>> Imagine what the amateur radio world would be like if all the references to
>> "LIDs" were replaced by recognition of good operating and positive
>> contributions. How many of us remember the A1 Operators Club (I may not
>> have the name exactly right) that the ARRL sponsored years ago? This was a
>> formal recognition of who we thought were good operators. Celebrating good
>> operating will be many fold more beneficial than denigrating each other
>> publicly.
>>
>> As an example of how each us can have very diverse reactions, take today's
>> thread that developed after W4HM's post about avoiding PSK and JT gathering
>> frequencies. All the subsequent posts chastised Thomas for his view.
>> Contrarily, when I read his post prior to all the backlash, my reaction was
>> "Wow, this is a breath of fresh air in our protracted debate about RTTY
>> QRMing of JT65 operations." I'm really glad he spoke up with that
>> perspective.
>>
>> In fact, I had composed a very similar posting myself, but decided against
>> perpetuating a thread that I felt had already spun way out of bounds. Now,
>> I regret not sharing my perspective. Maybe I'll retrieve it and send.
>>
>> BTW, I'm not against disagreement. I'm against aggressively attacking
>> another perspective. And, I really dislike aggressively attacking the
>> person in the process. It's much more effective to express disagreement by
>> articulating the value of your own perspective. I also like to identify the
>> value in someone else's opinion, especially when I initially have a negative
>> reaction to what they express. I'm often rewarded with a new and deeper
>> understanding of the issue on the table.
>>
>> I challenge all of us who enjoy RTTY operations to set an example for the
>> rest of our hobby and increase the amount of celebrating the positive rather
>> than sniping about what we perceive as negative or "wrong" with someone
>> else's view.
>>
>> Ed W0YK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RTTY Digest, Vol 145, Issue 19
> *************************************
More information about the RTTY
mailing list