Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:04:04 +0000
From: Chris Wilson <dead.fets@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1379859601.20180323130404@gmail.com>
To: N1BUG <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
CC: dead.fets@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <77fdd1d6-7e60-2f33-8c6e-98f787fe0ca8@n1bug.com>
References: <77fdd1d6-7e60-2f33-8c6e-98f787fe0ca8@n1bug.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Hello  Paul,

As Mrs. Beeton was alleged to have written in her 1920's cookery book
about preparing Jugged Hare , "First catch your hare..."  Then we
can argue the legitimacy or not of the endeavour ;)

Friday, March 23, 2018, 12:38:04 PM, you wrote:

> LF / 2200 meter community,

> I am a little afraid to ask this question. I don't want to start a
> "war" here. But...

> What is the feeling in the LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS)
> which takes more than a single night to complete? Is this OK or will
> it be seen as cheating?

> I am a very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason
> why a QSO spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it
> seems that's just taking advantage of available propagation and
> (very slow) modes which can get information across.

> I do think that if the operators stop for some nights, the QSO
> should reset to the beginning because that is a new attempt.

> I'm trying to find out what the community feels about this. I want
> to be a respectable member of this community, not an invading
> outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered evil, I won't
> do it. Now is your chance to educate me.

> 73,
> Paul N1BUG


-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:dead.fets@gmail.com