Anyone know if this was censorship, or due to something else?
>Subject: The results of your email commands
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>To: vr2bg@harts.org.hk
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:32:18 -0500
>X-BeenThere: cq-contest@contesting.com
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3
>List-Id: Ham radio contesting discussions <cq-contest.contesting.com>
>Sender: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at contesting.com
>
>The results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your
>original message.
>
>
>- Unprocessed:
> >>That means 20 kc of useable phone band in for many.
> >>
> >>No thank you.
> >
> >Then eliminate 40M from the CQWW SSB contest. Interfering with the
> rest
> >of the world's 40M communications is not the answer to the 20 kHz
> dilemma.
> SSB below 7010 kc is a daily thing nowadays - doesn't need to be
> CQ WW weekend & has been this way for a long time now.
> Although obviously rather extreme during CQ WW, it's interesting
> when the rest of the world that isn't shackled by mode restrictions
> adapts itself to situation & the reaction to this from those with such
> restrictions (whether it be USA or R1).
> Maybe all contests should be banned from 40m, as there is also
> the flip side to this - during CW contests, it's a bit hard to work
> SSB on 40.
> For now, member-states of ITU decided this is the way 40 will be.
> Perhaps USA (as well as others) thinks geographical separation
> is sufficient to keep us out of each other's hair, but I would imagine
>
>- Ignored:
> anyone with practical experience with SW propagation to know
> better.
>
> As with amateurs, 41-42m band seems to be crucial for b'casters.
> Two-thirds of ITU Regional world decided we only get 100 kc &
> we still will not have full cation of amateur service allocation
> world-wide soon apparently thanks to some countries, so please try
> to live with it - in much of R3 we have known nothing else & as
> many countries don't abide by ITU-RR, we may never have a 40m
> band that we think we may eventually have.
>
> 73, VR2BrettGraham
>
>
>- Done.
>
>Return-Path: <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
>X-Original-To: cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>Delivered-To: cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by dayton.akorn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866C3319538
> for <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>;
> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:32:17 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from dayton.akorn.net ([127.0.0.1])
> by localhost (dayton.akorn.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
> with ESMTP id 13098-06 for <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>;
> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:32:17 -0500 (EST)
>X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.4.2
>Received: from cwb.pacific.net.hk (cwb.pacific.net.hk [202.14.67.92])
> by dayton.akorn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446073192A3
> for <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>;
> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:31:42 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from vr2bg-1.harts.org.hk (4.204.17.210.dyn.pacific.net.hk
> [210.17.204.4]) by cwb.pacific.net.hk with ESMTP
> id j9VFVEPe019307 for <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>;
> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:31:18 +0800 (CST)
>Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20051031032059.024a9b38@pop.pacific.net.hk>
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:31:16 +0000
>To: <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>
>From: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Making the most of 40M SSB
>In-Reply-To: <00c801c5ddc3$92f8d770$053ca8c0@Dorm>
>References: <mailman.877.1130691507.1985.cq-contest@contesting.com>
> <6.2.0.14.0.20051031003240.0245c998@pop.pacific.net.hk>
> <00c801c5ddc3$92f8d770$053ca8c0@Dorm>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at contesting.com
>
>W9AC continued:
>
>>>That means 20 kc of useable phone band in for many.
>>>
>>>No thank you.
>>
>>Then eliminate 40M from the CQWW SSB contest. Interfering with the rest
>>of the world's 40M communications is not the answer to the 20 kHz dilemma.
>
>SSB below 7010 kc is a daily thing nowadays - doesn't need to be
>CQ WW weekend & has been this way for a long time now.
>
>Although obviously rather extreme during CQ WW, it's interesting
>when the rest of the world that isn't shackled by mode restrictions
>adapts itself to situation & the reaction to this from those with such
>restrictions (whether it be USA or R1).
>
>Maybe all contests should be banned from 40m, as there is also
>the flip side to this - during CW contests, it's a bit hard to work
>SSB on 40.
>
>For now, member-states of ITU decided this is the way 40 will be.
>
>Perhaps USA (as well as others) thinks geographical separation
>is sufficient to keep us out of each other's hair, but I would imagine
>anyone with practical experience with SW propagation to know
>better.
>
>As with amateurs, 41-42m band seems to be crucial for b'casters.
>Two-thirds of ITU Regional world decided we only get 100 kc &
>we still will not have full cation of amateur service allocation
>world-wide soon apparently thanks to some countries, so please try
>to live with it - in much of R3 we have known nothing else & as
>many countries don't abide by ITU-RR, we may never have a 40m
>band that we think we may eventually have.
>
>73, VR2BrettGraham
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|