Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
I agree with Jerry. It's a silly rule. I have helped newcommers and less
experienced operators locate the fox. It helps overcome the
discouragement factor and they ended up having fun with the hunt. If an
experienced op can hear the fox or the pack he can find the fox. If he
can't hear all the spots in the world won't help him.
If spots help more people work the fox instead of the fox sitting there
calling cq at the end of the hunt, what's the problem? We have some less
than expert ops on our team, should I let them sit all season and
struggle to learn this or should I help them? Spots or not, you have to
hear and be heard to get into the log. What caused this rule to be
formualted anyway?? Some one work too many foxes??
k5zty
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:49:09 -0600 "N9AW" <n9aw@...> writes:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
First off, I want to say that my comments are NOT targeted at Lloyd.
I
think Lloyd and the foxhunt committee work very hard to put the
hunts
together and they should be commended.
I don't really care about this rule one way or another mostly
because the
way I figure it you have to hear the fox, then work him. If I can
hear the
fox I almost always work him. Afterall, we all know approximately
where
they will be. If you can't hear him you're not going to work him
and it
really doesn't matter if someone else tells you where the fox is
that you
can't hear anyway. Last night was a good example. I looked for
W1RT in Va
for the majority of the hunt and couldn't hear him. Finally, a few
team
members could hear him but at ESP levels. None of us worked him.
Had his
signal come up it would have been easy to find him and then work
him.
One thing I do know about all this though is if we keep politicizing
everything and focusing the discussion on 'rules' instead of the fun
aspect
of QRP and foxhunts the foxhunts will be DEAD. I know that I and
others on
my team are in this for the fun and the comraderie.
Jerry N9AW
P.S. GO CHEESEHEADS !!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd Lachow" <llachow@...>
To: <qfox@...>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [qfox] Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
Interesting topic indeed!
I think that we on the Committee think of this event as a Hunt, which
is why we tweaked the rules. First you find the Fox, then you work the
Fox, if you can. Obviously, only an individual can work a Fox.
Yet, while most Hounds are also hunting the Fox, it seems perhaps a
number of us, hopefully small, is only doing the working part, and
being told where to look. If it's true that most Teams "work as a
team" in the sense of secretly sharing Fox spots, it hasn't happened
on any of the two or three other teams I've been on - there was never
a hint of sharing scores there.
We've only had one disqualification, and it was a situation where we
were certain that the offending Hound knew he was going against the
rule, and it was when he "posted" the spot publicly. I don't think
anyone should be disqualified if the rules are wishy-washy, or if it's
not certain that they knew they were breaking a rule. That's why I
began this discussion, and why we're changing the wording of the rule
to something other than "post," so it would cover any communication.
I must beg to respectfully disagree with Michael about "less rules
=
more fun!" because I think that the reverse is true, to a point. That
is not to say that more rules = more fun, but that we need rules to
have everybody playing the same game at the same time. The game itself
should be what we want to be doing, which, in this case, is hunting,
and then working, the Fox. No rules = anarchy = no fun at all, IMHO.
As Greg mentioned, I just don't want anyone telling me where a Fox
is.
Why be on a Team, then? Well, for me, it has added greatly to the
excitement of the Fox Hunts, and has often caused me to go beyond
where I might have given up - because my Team was counting on me! Some
of the Teams are grouped closely, some are spread way out. It adds to
the whole Fox Hunt scene to get a group of ops together, maybe
strategize about how best to work the Fox, maybe communicate during
the week, make sure everybody's ready to go, things like that. Just as
it's fun to see how well you can do from your QTH, with your setup -
neither of which change much, usually - it's also fun to see how a
group of five ops can do collectively, over a Season. It's fun!
The whole thing we're trying to accomplish with this is to have every
pelt mean the same thing...that you were able to locate and work the
Fox. If you can't find the Fox unless you use a spot provided for you,
just don't work the Fox. If you've been relying on spots, it's up to
you to decide if you want to continue, now that this clarification has
been posted. At least - I HOPE it was a clarification! 8^D
tally ho,
LL/K3ESE
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
home page
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
?
"?I advised my teammates that I
thought that the rule applied to
private, as well as public posting of
Fox Spots. In fact, I'm sure it does,
since I wrote it."
?
Sorry, I thought it was clearly understood.
How about those sending "up.up" on the foxes frequency? Is that
spotting?
k5zty
?
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:40:13 -0500 Lloyd Lachow < llachow@...> writes:
?
? Well,
I thought I had answered that in one of my previous posts. I looked and - sure
enough! I had. So I'll just reprint that for you, here:
"We've only
had one disqualification, and it was a situation where we
were certain that
the offending Hound knew he was going against the
rule, and it was when he
"posted" the spot publicly. I don't think
anyone should be disqualified if
the rules are wishy-washy, or if it's
not certain that they knew they were
breaking a rule. That's why I
began this discussion, and why we're changing
the wording of the rule
to something other than "post," so it would cover
any communication."
Did you see it this time?
?
LL/K3ESE
?
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
--- In qfox@..., Peter Burbank <nv4v@a...> wrote:
At 04:40 PM 11/11/2005, Lloyd Lachow wrote:
LLoyd and fellow foxhunt enthusiasts.
So as I read this it becomes clear that the bottom line is that the
rule was not
explicit in the first place. Yep! So all this is to get the word out that the *expectation* is that nobody is spotting Foxii for anybody else, and that being on a Team does not license Hounds to spot. LL/K3ESE
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
At 04:40 PM 11/11/2005, Lloyd Lachow wrote: That's why I began this discussion, and why we're changing the wording of the rule
to something other than "post," so it would cover any communication."
Did you see it this time?
LL/K3ESE LLoyd and fellow foxhunt enthusiasts. So as I read this it becomes clear that the bottom line is that the rule was not explicit in the first place. 73 Pete NV4V -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 11/10/2005
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
On 11/11/05, N9AW <n9aw@...> wrote: One thing I do know about all this though is if we keep politicizing
everything and focusing the discussion on 'rules' instead of the fun aspect
of QRP and foxhunts the foxhunts will be DEAD. I know that I and others on
my team are in this for the fun and the comraderie. Yes! The reason I'm on the Committee is because I enjoy the Hunts enough to spend time working to make them happen. We're not about seeing how many rules we can make, and I don't think there's any "politics" involved here. We also didn't go looking for evidence of spotting, although we knew it was probably going on. It came to us. As a committed Hound, I'm just not thrilled with the idea of some people posting spots, and some not. Since there's no practical way to provide the Fox's locations to everyone and changing the name to "QRP Fox Getting," we decided to try to make it a Hunt. I began this thread to bring it out and kick it around, as we're doing. There's no way to legislate morality on this, just as with the 5W limit. It's up to each of us. I'm willing to discuss this for the purpose of answering questions, and letting everyone know why it is the way it is, but it's up to us each as individuals to decide whether they want to use spots, or not...same as with us all expecting that everyone will use no more than 5W. As for "focusing on the rules," I believe this needed to be brought out, because some people were unclear about the application of this rule change. There are always issues when something changes, and it's natural for there to be questions...so we're discussing it here. If you've had enough of this thread, no need to keep reading them! LL/K3ESE
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
First off, I want to say that my comments are NOT targeted at Lloyd. I think Lloyd and the foxhunt committee work very hard to put the hunts together and they should be commended.
I don't really care about this rule one way or another mostly because the way I figure it you have to hear the fox, then work him. If I can hear the fox I almost always work him. Afterall, we all know approximately where they will be. If you can't hear him you're not going to work him and it really doesn't matter if someone else tells you where the fox is that you can't hear anyway. Last night was a good example. I looked for W1RT in Va for the majority of the hunt and couldn't hear him. Finally, a few team members could hear him but at ESP levels. None of us worked him. Had his signal come up it would have been easy to find him and then work him.
One thing I do know about all this though is if we keep politicizing everything and focusing the discussion on 'rules' instead of the fun aspect of QRP and foxhunts the foxhunts will be DEAD. I know that I and others on my team are in this for the fun and the comraderie.
Jerry N9AW
P.S. GO CHEESEHEADS !!!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Lachow" <llachow@...> To: <qfox@...> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [qfox] Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality Interesting topic indeed!
I think that we on the Committee think of this event as a Hunt, which
is why we tweaked the rules. First you find the Fox, then you work the
Fox, if you can. Obviously, only an individual can work a Fox.
Yet, while most Hounds are also hunting the Fox, it seems perhaps a
number of us, hopefully small, is only doing the working part, and
being told where to look. If it's true that most Teams "work as a
team" in the sense of secretly sharing Fox spots, it hasn't happened
on any of the two or three other teams I've been on - there was never
a hint of sharing scores there.
We've only had one disqualification, and it was a situation where we
were certain that the offending Hound knew he was going against the
rule, and it was when he "posted" the spot publicly. I don't think
anyone should be disqualified if the rules are wishy-washy, or if it's
not certain that they knew they were breaking a rule. That's why I
began this discussion, and why we're changing the wording of the rule
to something other than "post," so it would cover any communication.
I must beg to respectfully disagree with Michael about "less rules =
more fun!" because I think that the reverse is true, to a point. That
is not to say that more rules = more fun, but that we need rules to
have everybody playing the same game at the same time. The game itself
should be what we want to be doing, which, in this case, is hunting,
and then working, the Fox. No rules = anarchy = no fun at all, IMHO.
As Greg mentioned, I just don't want anyone telling me where a Fox is.
Why be on a Team, then? Well, for me, it has added greatly to the
excitement of the Fox Hunts, and has often caused me to go beyond
where I might have given up - because my Team was counting on me! Some
of the Teams are grouped closely, some are spread way out. It adds to
the whole Fox Hunt scene to get a group of ops together, maybe
strategize about how best to work the Fox, maybe communicate during
the week, make sure everybody's ready to go, things like that. Just as
it's fun to see how well you can do from your QTH, with your setup -
neither of which change much, usually - it's also fun to see how a
group of five ops can do collectively, over a Season. It's fun!
The whole thing we're trying to accomplish with this is to have every
pelt mean the same thing...that you were able to locate and work the
Fox. If you can't find the Fox unless you use a spot provided for you,
just don't work the Fox. If you've been relying on spots, it's up to
you to decide if you want to continue, now that this clarification has
been posted. At least - I HOPE it was a clarification! 8^D
tally ho,
LL/K3ESE
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
So LL, did you disqualify your team?
k5zty
-- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote:
Fellow Fox Fans,
We recently tweaked the rules to disallow posting of Fox spots, as
most know. The actual quote is, "The posting of "spots" (or reports
about fox activity that indicate a Fox's operating frequency) is
prohibited during a hunt and will result in disqualification."
Recently, I joined a team and was surprised to see that I got a
private email containing a Fox spot. I advised my teammates that I
thought that the rule applied to private, as well as public posting of
Fox Spots. In fact, I'm sure it does, since I wrote it.
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
It is just coincidence that the top teams usually all work the fox within a few minutes of each other??
-- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 11/11/05, Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote: ...If it's true that most Teams "work as a team" in the sense of secretly sharing Fox spots, it hasn't happened
on any of the two or three other teams I've been on - there was never
a hint of sharing scores there. I meant, "...sharing SPOTS there... LL Yahoo! Groups Links
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
All, LL, no problem with agreeable disagreement. I certainly don't advocate no rules just moderation. I don't make the rules and if they are clarified so that the rule makers intent is perfectly clear to all, so be it. I have no problem playing under the rules. My real problem is getting the time to play in the first place! :) mike/w1mt --- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote:
I must beg to respectfully disagree with Michael
about "less rules =
more fun!" because I think that the reverse is true,
to a point. That
is not to say that more rules = more fun, but that
we need rules to
have everybody playing the same game at the same
time. The game itself
should be what we want to be doing, which, in this
case, is hunting,
and then working, the Fox. No rules = anarchy = no
fun at all, IMHO.
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
On 11/11/05, Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote: ...If it's true that most Teams "work as a team" in the sense of secretly sharing Fox spots, it hasn't happened
on any of the two or three other teams I've been on - there was never
a hint of sharing scores there. I meant, "...sharing SPOTS there... LL
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
Interesting topic indeed!
I think that we on the Committee think of this event as a Hunt, which
is why we tweaked the rules. First you find the Fox, then you work the
Fox, if you can. Obviously, only an individual can work a Fox.
Yet, while most Hounds are also hunting the Fox, it seems perhaps a
number of us, hopefully small, is only doing the working part, and
being told where to look. If it's true that most Teams "work as a
team" in the sense of secretly sharing Fox spots, it hasn't happened
on any of the two or three other teams I've been on - there was never
a hint of sharing scores there.
We've only had one disqualification, and it was a situation where we
were certain that the offending Hound knew he was going against the
rule, and it was when he "posted" the spot publicly. I don't think
anyone should be disqualified if the rules are wishy-washy, or if it's
not certain that they knew they were breaking a rule. That's why I
began this discussion, and why we're changing the wording of the rule
to something other than "post," so it would cover any communication.
I must beg to respectfully disagree with Michael about "less rules =
more fun!" because I think that the reverse is true, to a point. That
is not to say that more rules = more fun, but that we need rules to
have everybody playing the same game at the same time. The game itself
should be what we want to be doing, which, in this case, is hunting,
and then working, the Fox. No rules = anarchy = no fun at all, IMHO.
As Greg mentioned, I just don't want anyone telling me where a Fox is.
Why be on a Team, then? Well, for me, it has added greatly to the
excitement of the Fox Hunts, and has often caused me to go beyond
where I might have given up - because my Team was counting on me! Some
of the Teams are grouped closely, some are spread way out. It adds to
the whole Fox Hunt scene to get a group of ops together, maybe
strategize about how best to work the Fox, maybe communicate during
the week, make sure everybody's ready to go, things like that. Just as
it's fun to see how well you can do from your QTH, with your setup -
neither of which change much, usually - it's also fun to see how a
group of five ops can do collectively, over a Season. It's fun!
The whole thing we're trying to accomplish with this is to have every
pelt mean the same thing...that you were able to locate and work the
Fox. If you can't find the Fox unless you use a spot provided for you,
just don't work the Fox. If you've been relying on spots, it's up to
you to decide if you want to continue, now that this clarification has
been posted. At least - I HOPE it was a clarification! 8^D
tally ho,
LL/K3ESE
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
Interesting topic.
As one who has not been the member of a team, I've wondered why we
have them, especially when team members could be spread throughout the
country. I've been asked several times to join a team, but purposely
said no because I knew I couldn't count on being there every week.
Being the member of a team carries that one big obligation - to be
there - which is good when you can do it. To me, the reason for
teams, would be for making the personal commitment to be there each
week on behalf of your other teammates.
But hearing now that team members are potentially sharing spots
doesn't sit well with me, especially since a team member can also be
the top recipient individually for the collecting the greatest number
of pelts. That would mean that some individuals were advantaged in
earning pelts.
I personally don't think we can have both ways - either we should
disallow spots altogether, private or public, even for teams, or we
must declare team members as being ineligible to receive the bragging
rights of being a top contender for individual scores.
On the other hand - this is just for fun, right? How I do each year
in total pelts is a personal challenge more than competition against
others. (Although it does look nice to see how few, or how many,
people are above you in having more pelts collected, or hearing that
others were just as disadvantaged in a given with propagation as I was.)
Cheers/73,
Kevin, K9IUA
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In qfox@..., Michael Harnage <w1mt@y...> wrote:
Hi LL,
Thanks for opening this up for public discussion. Here
are my thought for whatever they might be worth (not
much, I am afraid).
My personal feeling is that: less rules = more fun :)
Most teams communicate and always have.
If you are going to tell teams that they can't
communicate during the hunts, well then, why have
teams? After all, teams are, well, teams and they are
supposed to work as a, hmmmm, team.
As a member of a team last year (too many other
commitments to play on a team this year) I can tell
you that it is a blast to play as a team.
Just my 2 cents.
73 de w1mt
Mike
--- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@g...> wrote:
Anyway, I'm afraid that Team members, and maybe
others, are using
various methods of communicating Fox spots to each
other during the
Hunts, and I wanted to discuss this publicly.
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
Yes, thanks LL for bringing this up.
First, I don't participate in the fox hunts to win anything. However, because the results are tallied and posted periodically it is a competition of sorts so I try my best and hope to bag them both each week.
I am a member of a team but we do not communicate with each other during the hunts, or at least I don't and I don't think my team mates do either. The hunts are individual operating events first, or so I thought. I joined a team this winter for the camaraderie and in hopes of maybe learning something from my team mates, not to improve my chances of bagging the fox. And although I want my team to do well every week, I would never help any of my team members during a hunt even if I thought it within the rules.
This past summer I was not part of a team and although I ended up down the list a pretty good piece once it was all said and done, I was "in the hunt" so to speak up until the last two or three weeks and I just assumed I was competing for the top spot against others who were hunting the fox as I was, without the assistance of others. This is my first time to be on a team and if I had thought team members shared information during the hunts I would not have joined one in the first place. I don't want to be told where the fox is. Finding the fox is part of the game, maybe the biggest part of the game when conditions are as they were last night. As LL put it, it is after all a hunt.
If you're going to tell your team mates where the fox is, you might as well just go ahead and work the fox with their call signs.
Finally, having said all that, it really doesn't matter to me if others share info during the hunts. But it does change the game for me. It's no longer an individual competition. Maybe it never was. But that doesn't matter because it's still fun.
Just my $.02 ... See you all next week.
72 Greg K4KO
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
-- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote:
Fellow Fox Fans,
We recently tweaked the rules to disallow posting of Fox spots, as
most know. The actual quote is, "The posting of "spots" (or reports
about fox activity that indicate a Fox's operating frequency) is
prohibited during a hunt and will result in disqualification."
Recently, I joined a team and was surprised to see that I got a
private email containing a Fox spot. I advised my teammates that I
thought that the rule applied to private, as well as public posting of
Fox Spots. In fact, I'm sure it does, since I wrote it.
So, did you disqualify the team??
k5zty
|
Re: Fox posts, teams, and morality
Hi LL, Thanks for opening this up for public discussion. Here are my thought for whatever they might be worth (not much, I am afraid). My personal feeling is that: less rules = more fun :) Most teams communicate and always have. If you are going to tell teams that they can't communicate during the hunts, well then, why have teams? After all, teams are, well, teams and they are supposed to work as a, hmmmm, team. As a member of a team last year (too many other commitments to play on a team this year) I can tell you that it is a blast to play as a team. Just my 2 cents. 73 de w1mt Mike --- Lloyd Lachow <llachow@...> wrote: Anyway, I'm afraid that Team members, and maybe
others, are using
various methods of communicating Fox spots to each
other during the
Hunts, and I wanted to discuss this publicly.
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
|
Re: FOX: Really Rough Condx ;^(
I didn't even hear Doc for the first hour of the hunt. I heard the pack hunting John; but never heard John. I expected as much. At the beginning of the last half hour, all of a sudden, Doc's signal popped out of the mud. QSB was deep and fast. What made it tough was that I couldn't hear any of the hounds that Doc was responding to. I couldn't tell how far up Doc was listening; or if he was working simplex, it being later in the hunt. So I started spacing out my calls a few kHz upwards at a time. I apologize if any of my calls were so close to Doc that it made it difficult for the rest of you. Now I know what flying IFR must be like!
I'm pretty sure I bagged Doc with about 4 or 5 minutes left to spare. As I was working Doc, I heard Juan KG4FSN feverishly calling, too. Juan is always a solid signal up here to NJ. Last night he was very weak also; so the Propagation Pixies must have been on liberty for Veteran's Day, or something.
A big thanks to Doc and John for your efforts on a really crummy night, propagation wise! It was definitely a "Fox Hunt" last night; and not a "Fox Get".
73 de Larry W2LJ
--
Larry W2LJ
QRP - When you care to use the very
least!
|
Fox posts, teams, and morality
Fellow Fox Fans,
We recently tweaked the rules to disallow posting of Fox spots, as
most know. The actual quote is, "The posting of "spots" (or reports
about fox activity that indicate a Fox's operating frequency) is
prohibited during a hunt and will result in disqualification."
Recently, I joined a team and was surprised to see that I got a
private email containing a Fox spot. I advised my teammates that I
thought that the rule applied to private, as well as public posting of
Fox Spots. In fact, I'm sure it does, since I wrote it.
Anyway, I'm afraid that Team members, and maybe others, are using
various methods of communicating Fox spots to each other during the
Hunts, and I wanted to discuss this publicly.
Nobody can tell if people are spotting Foxii for each other
off-list, whether in Teams or not. Similarly, nobody can verify
whether Hounds are using 5W or QRO in the Hunts. These are matters
that are left to the personal consciences of the individuals playing
the game...but they affect the entire enterprise we're all engaged in.
The honor sytem only works among those with honor. Please think
about whether, when Ken hands you the Team Plaque in Dayton next May,
if you'd feel the same about it either way, hmmm...?
LL/K3ESE
|
Re: FOX: Really Rough Condx ;^(
I experienced the same thing, except that Doc remained loud for the
remainder of the hunt. Not only did signals come up, but my noise floor
dropped significantly as well.
I never heard John, nor hounds in pursuit of him.
Al, K2ZN
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Imel <jeffimel@...> Date: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:27 am Subject: Re: [qfox] FOX: Really Rough Condx ;^( At around 0300 UTC K0EVZ all of the sudden jumped from ESP to 20
over S9. Wow! Doc stayed there for 12 minutes and then faded back
into the noise in about three minutes.
It appeared we had a conduit between East Central Indiana and New
Mexico, so I replied with my 1 watt into a 600 ohm ladderline fed
40 meter vertical dipole and Doc heard me...sounds like from his
remarks I was loud on his end also.
This propagation thing is an interesting animal. I wonder what
happened to make Doc signal so loud for 12 minutes.
73
Jeff
K9ESE
|
Re: FOX: Really Rough Condx ;^(
At around 0300 UTC K0EVZ all of the sudden jumped
from ESP to 20 over S9.? Wow!? Doc stayed there for 12 minutes and
then faded back into the noise in about?three minutes.
?
It appeared we had a conduit between East Central
Indiana and New Mexico, so I replied with my 1 watt into a 600 ohm ladderline
fed 40 meter vertical dipole and?Doc heard me...sounds like from his
remarks I was loud on his end also.
?
This propagation thing is an interesting
animal.? I wonder what happened to make Doc signal so loud for 12
minutes.
?
73
?
Jeff
K9ESE
?
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 7:57
AM
Subject: Re: [qfox] FOX: Really Rough
Condx ;^(
Good job Doc.? Too bad about the propagation.?
You were a solid S9 here in
SE WI at the start of the hunt and about S8
when I worked you.? About a half
hour later we couldn't hear you
anymore because a number of the Cheeseheads
commented about not hearing
you on 2 mtrs.
72,
Jerry N9AW
----- Original Message
-----
From: "W.D. (Doc) Lindsey"
To:
"qfox" ; "QRP-L Reflector"
Cc:
Sent:
Friday, November 11, 2005 1:18 AM
Subject: [qfox] FOX: Really Rough Condx
;^(
> Gang:
>
> Conditions were *REALLY* rough
tonite, almost from the beginning, sad to
> say.? I had really
hoped they would be at least as good as they were on
> Monday evening
for the ARS Sprint.? But alas it was not to be, doggonit.
> Sorry
guys.? Despite my best efforts, I only managed ~52 QSOes raw
score.
> I will do my best to post the log sometime Friday.? Karl
and Tom will be
> surprised, I'll wager!? And Todd AG0T was
absolutely booming in here early
> in the hunt.? But conditions
really went downhill from the beginning.? QRN
> was rough, reaching
S8+ at the end.? And QSB was a challenge throughout.
> Plus several
times guys decided to call CQ almost dead on-frequency [g].
> Oh
well.
>
> I tried QSYing a couple of times, and the last one
actually seemed to help
> a lot.? Thanks and congrats to you
intrepid and excellent ops who found me
> almost immediately.? And
what was truly impressive was how well everyone
> worked as a true TEAM,
working very quickly, so that I was able to put as
> many guys as
possible into the log in the few minutes we had left.? I
>
could
> not hear anyone still calling at the very end.? Thanks very
much for this
> true teamwork, guys.? It was truly great teamwork
by a great group of
> highly disciplined QRPers, and it made me proud to
be a part of this
> community!? Great going.? I hope all of us
could hear how this went.? It
> was what many of have been working
for the past near-decade or so!? Wow,
> truly
impressive.
>
> Anyway, more later.
>
> 73,
>
--Doc/K0EVZ
>
>
>
>
> W.D. (Doc) Lindsey
>
dock0evz@...
> EarthLink Revolves Around
You.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Lloyd K3ESE
Al K2ZN