Well Steve, I wasn't going to comment further in this thread .. but
what the heck? I started the snowball, after all :)
Fact is, while the root email in this thread establishes a new low in
terms of language and attitude much of the content therein is relevant
and quite possibly factual. Unlikely as it seems, I roved for 33 hours
and hit 11 grids, never getting more than a couple hundred miles away
from Greylock and usually much closer, and couldn't get a pass to
freaking 222 much less to the microwaves. Most operators agree that
that sounds insane .. why would a station pass up 10 or 11 easy
10-band contacts that would have used up perhaps 10 minutes per grid
visited? Our foul-mouthed friend suggests that scheduling of their
'captive' rovers precludes any time for 'normal' rovers, or that they
have time but not the desire to work 'normal' rovers. I have no clue
but it certainly was frustrating for us to not make those q's on top
of the already crappy condx up north that weekend. Perhaps (unlikely
as it is) we'll hear from a representative of that group and we can
find out firsthand?
de w1rt/john
On 9/18/07, Stephan Andre' <andres@msu.edu> wrote:
> snip
> comments about whats what is useful. This email does
> not meet that standard. There is a lot of heat here but
> precious little light.
> snip
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|