[Cwo] [Fwd: Re: proposed CW Open IV changes]

[k6rb at baymoon.com]

Tokyo Ham Fair.
 
 
And what about August 23?


 


 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless
4G LTE Smartphone







-------- Original message --------

From: k6rb at baymoon.com 

Date: 09/16/2013 5:49 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To: Jim 

Cc: k6rb at baymoon.com,cwo at kkn.net 

Subject: RE: [Cwo] [Fwd: Re: proposed CW Open IV changes] 






Boy, there's a strong endorsement :-). I have to respectfully
disagree with Hank. On Sep 6 we conflict IN TIME with no one!!! So, if
someone who plans to do Sprint feels a need to drink lots of Gatorade, do
plenty of pushups, and practice some Zen meditation beforehand, that
person may not show up for one session (session 3). Or may only do 1 or 2
hours of session 3.
 
On Sep 20, we conflict with SAC over two full sessions,
concurrently!!!
 
On Sep 27, we conflict with TQP over two full sessions,
concurrently!!!
 
Can we get real, here? We've been holding CW Open on weekends where
many US people travel (Labor Day). We've even gone head-to-head with an RU
and JA contest. Now, we're fretting over a situation where we do not
conflict AT ALL???
 
If there was another Saturday where we had no conflicts, of course I
would opt for that. But, here we have a choice of three: one with no time
conflicts, one with 8 hours of conflict; and another one with 8 hours of
conflict.
 
In fact, let me say that I'm in favor, under the present
circumstances, in doing CW Open on Sep 6 AND NOT adjusting the session 3
time at all. I disagree with Al that shifting the time will make any
difference. Someone who is going to blow off session 3 to prepare for
Sprint is going to do it unless there's 8 hours difference. Why should we
change our times?
 
CW Sprint used to bang into a phone or RTTY contest, at one point,
and 40 meters was completely unusable. Sure, we grumbled, but we did it,
anyway. Here, there will be no QRM with Sprint.
 
I know I'm not going to win a popularity contest with Hank (even
though he's my favorite exuberant skier), but we are between a rock and
hard place, here, and I just don't see the conflict-less situation with
Sprint having the same gravitas as the others.
 
So, Jim, I disagree without equivocation.
 
Rob K6RB
 
 
 
I agree with Hank, I suppose.


 


 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless
4G LTE Smartphone







-------- Original message -------- 

From: k6rb at baymoon.com 

Date: 09/16/2013 5:12 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To: cwo at kkn.net 

Subject: [Cwo] [Fwd: Re: proposed CW Open IV changes] 






One comment....

 

 

---------------------------- Original Message
---------------------------- 

Subject: Re: [Cwo] proposed CW Open IV changes 

From: "Hank Garretson" 

Date: Mon, 16 September, 2013 11:22 am 

To: "Rob" 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------




 



I don't think CWO and CW Sprint same weekend is a good thing. For me
at least, it would mean that I would put less emphasis on CWO. 



 
CQWW RTTY weekend is a nonstarter.



 
To me, the least of all evils and best for CWops is to unfortunately
conflict with SAC CW and some state QSO parties. 



73,



 
Hank, W6SX









On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:20 AM, k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:



Date: 6 Sep 2014

Session 1: 0000-0400Z

Session 2: 1200-1600Z

Session 3: 1800-2200Z

Comments?


_______________________________________________

Cwo mailing list

Cwo at kkn.net

http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo






 








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20130916/58d462eb/attachment.html