Jim,
Sounds reasonable. (I do think that eventually technology will move us to
where SO can run two freq's (maybe a "skimmer" copying on each channel).
Would it be immoral then? Or would we not care, because the nature of
"operating" would have changed so much?)
So, shall I start building your Keep-the-Freq inverted CW box? Or do you
need one for each of four stations in SS? :>)
(My real gripe is the guys who are running two freq's in SS CW; or sending
dummy CQs to keep one freq openwhile they copy a report onthe other freq. I
get set to call them, and they disappear; or it's clear that they are not
listening for answers on the freq where I hear their CQ. Maybe in 'tests
with a shorter exchange it's not a problem. Or if I could have consistent
success with CQs instead of having to S&P so much in SS CW, I would not
notice.)
73, Art K3KU
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, <Jimk8mr@aol.com> wrote:
> **
> Because much of the time only one band is really open and useful. Think 20
> meters when the solar flux is at 70.
>
> Also because I don't think many SO guys can defend two run frequencies at
> one time. Two guys, even interlocked, have a chance.
>
>
> 73 - Jim K8MR
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/18/2011 11:04:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> artboyars@gmail.com writes:
>
> So, why is dueling CQs not immoral if done on two different bands -- which
> seems to be the consensus for advanced SO2R, as has been expounded every
> time I complain about the practise. Hey. one signal at a time is one
> signal
> at a time.
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|