[UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 70, Issue 23

[Steve White]

I would be very interested in using a short call (x#x) of my own in all 
contests. It would not be to disguise who I am, but to make QSOs faster. An 
SCC might not make anyone think I had been licensed for many years - it 
might make them think I've been licensed for only a short time but wish to 
conceal the fact by using an SCC. Who cares anyway? My thoughts are that 
SCCs should only be available to those with Advanced licences, giving 
Foundation and Intermediate licence holders yet another reason to study and 
upgrade. As for people asking for repeats of the non-existent third suffix 
letter, there are plenty of weird callsigns around these days, so I think 
most people are used to callsigns which don't conform to the x#xxx standard.

If/when vanity calls are allowed (x#xx, xx#x or whatever), I shall have no 
hesitation in applying for one of those as well. And I think vanity calls 
should only be available to those with Advanced licences too.

As for high power limits for all, I think we can forget about that one.

Steve, G3ZVW

> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:17:12 +0100
> From: " Ken Eastty" <ken.g3lvp at btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Vanity Calls (Again)
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <013c01c9369b$9c1ac280$0e64a2d5 at ke>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I know that this topic was been discussed at length a few months ago but I
> don't recall ever receiving an answer to my question why does anyone feel
> the need to change their callsign ?
>
> I can see that there are cases where the call has previously been 
> allocated
> to a family member or very occasionally where the original call as a
> combination of letters which are difficult to copy but I find the need to
> change from a 'regular' callsign to a '2 letter' call hard to understand.
> Is it just the case that some people find the need to disguise the fact 
> that
> they've only been licensed for a short time and want to make the rest of 
> us
> think that they have many years of experience under their belts? Even for 
> a
> serious contester the difference between a 2 & 3 letter call can't make 
> that
> much difference and in some cases can even be a hindrance. When in the 
> past
> using the club call G4KF we were often asked to repeat the non-existant
> third letter.
>
> I noticed whilst looking back at previous postings to see what had been 
> said
> about vanity calls a comment that some M3's/2E's etc. would soon be asking
> to run more power as they are not being fairly treated with the lower 
> power
> limits. I now see the letters in recent Radcom's trying to justify this
> change. Perhaps we should all be allowed to run up to 1kW like those
> (mainly) anonymous individuals who have high power permits and the higher
> powers apparently allowed in some other European countries, TVI here we
> come!
>
> 73....
>
> Ken
>
> G3LVP
>
>
>>
>> Hi list
>>
>> Has anyone heard how the above meeting went, with particular reference
>> to the vanity calls issue, which I understand was scheduled for specific
>> consideration.
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> Clive
>> GW3NJW
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
>> End of UK-Contest Digest, Vol 70, Issue 22
>> ******************************************
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1731 - Release Date: 17/10/08
> 19:01
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1731 - Release Date: 17/10/08 
> 19:01
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
> End of UK-Contest Digest, Vol 70, Issue 23
> ******************************************
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1744 - Release Date: 24/10/2008 
> 18:08
>
>