[RTTY] "QRL?" is a trick question on RTTY!

[Bill Turner]

I have to say, Tim's post below got me to thinking about the purpose of QFL? in the first place and not just contesting but ham radio in general. As I see it, the original purpose of QRL? way back at the beginning of ham radio was mostly to see if someone was ragchewing or handling traffic, both of which involve long transmissions. When that's going on and you can only hear one side, QRL? makes sense. Very different from contesting, where exchanges are short and 10 or 15 seconds of listening will capture both sides. 
 
Given that, QRL? seems to be all but useless in a contest and is an actual QRM generator. 
 
No more QRL? for me. 
 
73, Bill W6WRT
 
 
 
> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:02:11 -0400
> From: tshoppa at gmail.com
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: [RTTY] "QRL?" is a trick question on RTTY!
> 
> If I am running with a well-established frequency for a half hour or an
> hour, and somebody decides that "QRL?" for 10 seconds or even a whole
> minute is a valid way to see if the frequency 50Hz away is free or not, I
> will not print him and he will not print me.
> 
> I'm not saying that I never use the clarifier to print the off-frequency
> callers. But I myself will never QSY my transmit frequency to meet an
> off-frequency caller. Much less someone trying to justify taking my run
> frequency.
> 
> Sending QRL? instead of listening to the frequency, is just a "trick
> question" for him to validate QRM'ing me.
> 
> The only valid way to determine if the frequency is clear or not, is to
> listen for a while!!!!
> 
> Lack of printable response to QRL? on RTTY will never be a valid to start
> CQ'ing.
> 
> Tim N3QE
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty