I agree with Steve - none of the "top dogs" would wait that long - in fact,
since they would have dropped the call in while calling CQ on another band,
they probably wouldn't have waited. On the other hand, some of the rest of
us might have - and the real point was, if that's the scenario, is there
anything contrary to the rules? I don't think so.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 06:14 PM 9/13/2007, Steve London wrote:
>Pete Smith wrote:
>>Is there maybe a semantic issue here, rather than a real one? I thought
>>Howie was describing something like the following - assume starting with
>>calling someone on 20 while CQing on 40:
>>on 20 N4AF sends "N4AF" [answering N5OT's CQ]
>>on 20 N5OT sends "N4AF N5OT 30 Mark TX" while simultaneously on 40 N4AF
>>sends "CQ NA N4AF NA"
>>on 20 N4AF sends "N5OT 21 AL NC N4AF" while simultaneously on 40 K5ZD
>>sends "K5ZD" [answering N4AF's CQ]
>>on 40 (after finishing on 20) N4AF sends "K5ZD N4AF 22 AL NC"
>
>But you have made K5ZD wait a long time before N4AF responds to him. If I
>was K5ZD, I probably would have given up on N4AF.
>
>>while simultaneously on 20 N6TR sends "N6TR" [calling N4AF]
>>on 20 (after finishing on 40) N4AF sends "N6TR N4AF 23 AL NC"
>
>You have made N6TR wait even longer for N4AF to respond. I certainly
>wouldn't wait that long.
>
>>on 20 N6TR sends "N4AF 33 TREE OR N6TR"; meanwhile after >5KHz QSY, on 40
>>N4AF sends "CQ NA N4AF NA"
>>That looks to me like a legal couplet on 20 and a legal single QSO on 40,
>>followed by >5 KHz QSY on 40 before another CQ
>>Where's the rule violation?
>
>No rules violation, just poor operating by N4AF. (Just so there's no
>confusion - this use of N4AF in the example is completely fictional. Howie
>is a great op !)
>
>73,
>Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|