nope, no TV involved :)
Soviet hams used to have this code language when they needed to sell or buy
something.
You could not simply say that you have a vacuum tube to sell and ask 10
rubles for that.
There was pretty big chance of being reported by somebody and you gonna
loose you ham licence for 6 month or a year or even forever.
Any exchange of personal info was prohibited - no addresses, no phone
numbers, no selling/buying, anything.
The recommendation was to stick to ham-radio matters...
Instead of "10 rubles" you can say that you want to exchange it for 10
resistors, or for another RED tube (red is the color of 10 rubles bill)
or, if you need a bottle of vodka - you just say that you need half-liter
capacitor :)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Roberto Rey <cwdude@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex, That is so far fetched..its hilarious! Who would monitor a frqcy
> 24/7 hearing nothing for hours?
>
> You are watching too much TV!
>
> 73 de Rob HK3CW
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb@gmail.com>
> To: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
> Cc: "Bob Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>; "Ed K1EP" <k1ep.list@gmail.com>; "cq
> Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
>
>
>
> "which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using"
>>
>> hmmm...
>>
>> I would arrange a few CW frequencies and ask my friend back in the states
>> or Canada to monitor them 24x7.
>> Once in a while I will transmit a request for "spot me, the rate is slow"
>> and will notify him about upcoming band change.
>> All of this can be done in a form of innocent cq or fake qso with bogus
>> call sign...
>>
>> N0ONE de CO0LID... my radio is 14 years old, my power is 220 W
>>
>> that's it - you just told you friend to spot you at 14.220 :)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ve4xt@mymts.net <ve4xt@mymts.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US
>>> stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero
>>> DQs?
>>>
>>> Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the
>>> message is "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a
>>> significant rule Americans should be expected to obey?
>>>
>>> Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after
>>> having been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station does it
>>> once, and isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, or is
>>> done after a warning.
>>>
>>> Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as
>>> bias?
>>>
>>> Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am
>>> curious, in light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as
>>> evidence to the contrary, which off-air method of communication the team
>>> is
>>> suspected of using.
>>>
>>> If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, shouldn't
>>> that also apply to exculpatory evidence?
>>>
>>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> OK. That's enough.
>>> >>
>>> >> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and
>>> T48K
>>> >> in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>>> >
>>> > Off air? ESP? Just how did this happen? We were on an island in a
>>> > somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi. If you had a
>>> > satellite phone, you would be put in prison. We submitted our cell >
>>> phone
>>> > bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no evidence
>>> > of
>>> > this. But Bob claims apparent evidence. Show us the evidence Bob. >
>>> Bob
>>> > wants us to prove the negative.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K
>>> were
>>> >> evaluated.
>>> >
>>> > So off the air is now on the air.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
>>> >> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>>> >
>>> > There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on his
>>> > first shift in the contest. We told him to not do it, he stopped, that
>>> was
>>> > it. So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ? How
>>> about
>>> > all the US stations we worked out of the US band? Clear evidence in >
>>> our
>>> > log of the frequency. Not one US station was DQd.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
>>> >> Disqualification confirmed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>>> >
>>> > Those are not all the facts and you know it. You are trying to >
>>> justify
>>> a
>>> > bad judgment call.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for
>>> >> the
>>> >> T48K DQ.
>>> >
>>> > You clearly state "apparent". That is a hunch.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>>> >>
>>> >> 73,
>>> >> Bob W5OV
>>> >> CQWW Contest Committee
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
>>> >>> On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It is indeed time for some rules changes. You cannot be DQing people
>>> for
>>> >>> the actions of others that we have no control over. If you have >>>
>>> proof
>>> >>> of collusion or cooperation great. To tell me you can DQ me because
>>> >>> my
>>> >>> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few
>>> >>> times
>>> >>> is over the top.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has done.
>>> >>> He
>>> >>> will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that
>>> station's
>>> >>> knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or
>>> communication
>>> >>> with the spotter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|