[Elecraft] Is there a reason the receive is so Skinny

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

98 percent of contesters?  Exaggerate much?

I am sure we can find examples of your infractions easily enough during 
non contest periods.

So many trolls...............

Mike W0MU

On 4/27/2014 7:39 PM, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft wrote:
>>>>>   willful
> use of a bandwidth in excess of 2.8 KHz can *still* be considered a
> violation in conjunction with other conditions - particularly
> interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc. <<<<
>
> NOW!!!!!
> You have just Describe 98% of those who proclaim their love of Contesting!
>
> [particularly!
> interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc.]
>
> BTW.
> Aggressive use of Compression (PUNCH)
> Overly active ALC.
> And! Last but not the least, chronic twisting of the mic gain knob
> to the right is tantamount of the above mention.
>
> Maybe, we should just include the Contester in this tantivy as well.
>
>
>
> ((((73)))) Milverton. / W9MMS
>
>
> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:09 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com> wrote:
>   
>
>> On the other hand, Title 47 which includes more than Part 97 regularly
>> defines SSB as 2K80J3E (2.8 KHz bandwidth) and specifies a maximum
>> modulating frequency of 2.8 KHz for various FM voice "communications"
>> services.
>>
>> Given that standard, and the fact that RM-10740 was dismissed without
>> modifying the rule that requires the use of minimum bandwidth, without
>> modifying the rules against intentional interference, and without
>> modifying the rule that requires "good engineering practice," willful
>> use of a bandwidth in excess of 2.8 KHz can *still* be considered a
>> violation in conjunction with other conditions - particularly
>> interference, splatter, distortion, IMD, etc.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>      ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/27/2014 8:42 PM, Milverton M. Swire via Elecraft wrote:
>>>>>>> This issue is not just about "...other hams having fun doing what they
>>> want to do with their K3s", there really are some good engineering
>>> reasons for not using ESSB below 100 MHz.  Joe has articulated a few.
>>> Beyond the "...other hams having fun..." argument, is there really any
>>> other reason to do ESSB? <<<<
>>>
>>> David, et al.
>>>
>>> The question of " Legality " and Engineering reasoning has been bantered around
>>> on numerous different occasions.
>>> There are many in their zeal to defend their ideals will make frivolous statements on
>>> what should or should not be the accepted TBW.
>>> Irrespective of what some of us may think, there are no set number on TBW for SSB.
>>>
>>> For those who are about to get their under wears in a wad, here are the FCC view on the
>>> subject a define bandwidth on Phone.
>>>
>>> http://www.nu9n.com/images/FCC-DA-04-3661A1-final.pdf
>>>
>>> There are many of us who often times forget that this is a HOBBY for Amateurs.
>>>
>>> ((((73)))) Milverton.
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to tnnyswy at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w0mu at w0mu.com