CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Vanity calls

Subject: Vanity calls
From: ni6t@scruznet.com (Garry Shapiro)
Date: Sat Aug 31 16:53:33 1996
It has never been clear to me why so many seem to think 2x1's are bad 
news--a lot of them were turned in at gate 1. Perhaps someone who thinks 
that can illuminate me. I DO understand the inherent problems with 
something like WO0G or W0OG, and with almost-all-dit callsigns like 
WS5H. And, for those whose callsigns are notorious, a change offers an 
opportunity to hide for a while.

When I came back to the fold in '82, after a lapse of 16 or 17 years, I 
took all the tests one morning in SF, and my friend who had talked me 
into it told me I would probably get NI6-something. "What kind of 
*(^&(^!@ callsign is that?" I asked. He had to explain it to me. Had I 
NOT lapsed, I think I would have been just short on seniority when the 
first callsign circus came to town--I was licensed in '56.

I LIKE my callsign--with the "I" it's not perfect on CW, and there are 
too durned many six tangos--out of 78 possibles--contesting and DXing. 
But it's short--like a dagger in a pileup, I relate to it, and I see 
little benefit in changing it. After all, N6AA, N6ZZ and N6DX are taken 
:-) And it looks like there will be a fearsome struggle for what good 
ones are available. I also have always liked the fact that there are no 
ghosts--nobody else has had this callsign. I guess nobody else will, for 
a while: I plan to sit this one out.

-- 
Garry Shapiro, NI6T
Editor, The DXer
newsletter of the Northern California DX Club

>From w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede)  Fri Aug 30 03:15:02 1996
From: w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede) (Bob Selbrede)
Subject: naqp logs?? - Reply
Message-ID: <199608300215.AA19497@bart.ccis.com>

        Thanks for answering Tor's question, Steve.  Actually, the E-Mail is
working FB here.  I've been gone on 2 business trips and 1 Boy Scout Summer
Camp in the last 2 weeks so I'm a bit behind on my E-Mail correspondance.
Tor, I received your log all three times you sent it!  I should get caught
up tonight.  If you have E-Mailed me an NAQP CW Log and haven't gotten a
reply by tomorrow, drop me a note.

        In reference to AC4ZO's comments last night about refused Fed-Ex
mail, THEY NEVER CAME TO THIS RESIDENCE!  I would have no reason to turn
away his or anyone else's log submission.  I'll be contacting him to get the
Fed-Ex tracking number so I can investigate this one myself.  Keep them logs
coming!  They should be post marked or E-Mailed by 4 September.  Thanks.

73, Bob W9NQ


At 11:00 AM 8/29/96 -0700, Stephen Merchant wrote:
>At 10:35 AM 8/29/96 CDT, N4OGW wrote:
>>Has anyone else submitted naqp logs via email?  I've sent several emails to
>>w9nq@ccis.com, but haven't gotten a single confirmation.
>
>Bob's e-mail has been giving him a few problems lately, but I think he
>ultimately gets the mail.  If anyone is nervous about this, send me your log
>and I'll make sure Bob gets it.
>
>73, Steve W6EMS
>merchant@silcom.com
>
>


>From utahfolk@konnections.com (Utah Folk)  Sun Aug  4 19:41:02 1996
From: utahfolk@konnections.com (Utah Folk) (utahfolk)
Subject: a little math ......
Message-ID: <3204EEBD.FDC@konnections.com>

10*log(150/100)=1.76 = 0.293 S-units 

                QSB comes in 10 db CHUNKS!

                      ...... de W (the Ultimate VANITY Call!)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Vanity calls, Garry Shapiro <=