[PaQSO] RTTY in PAQP

[W3JXP]

Boy talk about dilution, yet another contest.
As you may note I'm the assistant chairman of the PAQSO party committee. I 
want to make it clear the committee did not start this Digital mode question 
but we are following it with some interest.

The rest of this is my own thoughts and are not "official" thinking or 
planning of the committee!

I'm in no way shape or form a CW op. I own a key but I use it with the keyer 
in my rig to tune my amplifier. I did 1200 contacts on phone this year with 
about 1100 if memory servers, last year. That is more than anyone else did 
this year, only W3SO came close this number of phone contacts and that was a 
mulit/mulit station, not a single op like I was. Only 5 stations had more 
total contacts than I did. In spite of this, if I may say so, excellent 
performance I had no chance of winning any major plaque. All the winners 
outside of the CW only plaque made almost as many contacts on CW as phone or 
better. And with the CW points advantage I had no chance. So what is the 
point of this, I think that it's time to level the playing field some. The 
digital modes could be one way or maybe a Phone only plaque or maybe both. 
Don't feel bad for me though, I did win a plaque for the high score in the 
Nittany ARC, an award I've sponsored for years. And why did I win it? 
Because N3EB who has won it for years and makes many CW QSO's didn't compete 
this year other wise he would have won it again. So I win my own plaque!

Anyway these are my own thoughts and are not the official position of the 
committee.

John Passaneau W3JXP
State College Pa.
W3JXP at adelphia.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Schreibmaier" <k3ph at ptd.net>
To: "Fran Burke II / K3LYC" <k3lyc at chilitech.net>
Cc: "PA QSO" <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] RTTY in PAQP


> Agreed!  I like Kay's idea, too!  Sounds like a
> good idea to actually see how much interest there
> really is.  If there is sufficient interest,
> then perhaps we can scare up a few software writers
> to include the capability for all the appropriate
> modes in their software (in addition, of course,
> to controlling radios through the COM port and
> keying CW through the LPT port and voice keying
> through the sound card and...).
>
> 72/73,
> Bob
> K3PH
> President, Luddites for Keeping PAQP the Way It Is  8-)
>
> Fran Burke II / K3LYC wrote:
>> Boy I must admit, that really woke the reflector up!
>>
>> Just to make it clear, this was only to see if there was enough interest 
>> in
>> digital to actually include it in on the party. It has nothing to do with 
>> CW
>> vs.SSB ops as a few have made it out to be. Somehow it all turns into 
>> that,
>> can't figure it out..........lol!!
>>
>> If you do go back through and count the votes, you'll notice that the 
>> no's
>> do have it at this time, but only by a few votes. This should tell 
>> everyone
>> that there is an interest in digital in our "community."  And I too don't
>> believe it would be too wise to jump headfirst into this. I do like Kay 
>> and
>> a few others suggestions of a PQD. :-) At this time, I think that would
>> definitly be the best route to go...........
>>
>>
>> PS: nice to see everyone's input on this, 'bout time this reflector show 
>> a
>> little bit of activity........lol!!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PaQSO mailing list
>> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> +----------------------------------------------+
> | Bob Schreibmaier K3PH | E-mail: k3ph at ptd.net |
> | Kresgeville, PA 18333 | http://www.dxis.org  |
> +----------------------------------------------+
>
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso