[PaQSO] PAQP 2011

[tworkman43 at comcast.net]

I agree, I call it efficiency . 
Correct me if I am wrong, when you find yourself at the business end of a pileup, you have a choice to make. 
Run stations and ID every ten minutes,( per FCC rule) and, , be harassed with request "your call?" 


Or, in my opinion,the proper protocol would be ( their call) , NR xxx in XXX county, QRZ (your call). 


We could masturbate this issue forever but, Really? Face the fact, we all had fun. 
DE, AA3CE 






----- Original Message -----
From: "Goody K3NG" <goody.k3ng at gmail.com> 
To: paqso at mailman.qth.net 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:45:24 PM 
Subject: Re: [PaQSO] PAQP 2011 

I was going to let the thread die as I gave my three cents and took up 
enough bandwidth, but since you asked.... 

In my original rant I was not advocating not IDing in between QSOs or 
infrequent IDing. My beef was rare county ops in pileups giving a 
tortuous exchange/ID like "Thanks for the contact station K1ABC, This 
is K3NG, for the Pennsylvania QSO Party in Carbon County. QRZed." 
Just say "QSL, K3NG QRZed" or something to that affect. That's what 
I'm recommending. I'm not implying "proper" IDing slows things down. 
Inefficient, redundant, and unnecessarily verbose post-QSO exchanges 
do. 

I said it was common practice in contests to not ID between each and 
every QSO and my commentary was on how the rule for IDing is enforced 
and based on that what I think the intent of the rule is: easy 
identification of the station. If someone is running 250 QSOs per 
hour and IDs between every three QSOs, the ID is going to be announced 
about once every 43 seconds. That's more frequent than you see in 
your typical ragchew or roundtable where you often have to wait the 
full 10 minutes. Furthermore, if we're going to take the ID rule to 
the Nth degree, most search and pounce stations don't ID when they 
give their exchange report which is their last transmission in the 
QSO, so technically they're in violation of the rules, too. This 
practice is *way* more prevalent than stations running a frequency not 
IDing between each QSO. Should we send all of them OO reports? That 
will kill some trees. 

I personally ID between each and every QSO when running a frequency. 
I'm not going to fault someone with a high run rate skipping an ID 
here and there and I doubt the end of the amateur radio as we know it 
will occur as it's been going on for decades. 


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM, <dtx at verizon.net> wrote: 
> Does K3NG realize what he recommends or at least condones?The vast majority 
> of hams make a conscious effort to adhere to good amateur practice. Hard to 
> define in a few words, but we all know - or should know - what that means 
______________________________________________________________ 
PaQSO mailing list 
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso 
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm 
Post: mailto:PaQSO at mailman.qth.net 

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net 
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html