Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:09:02 +0000
From: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Message-ID: <20090124210902.238d2d83@lurcher>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Grabbers
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 LF,

I find it strange that the number of grabbers active should be used as a
measure of the conditions and activity levels of the LF bands.

Surely died in the wool "real radio amateurs" - who eschew all operation
except manual telegraphy - should care not a jot if anyone has a grabber
online or not?

If this is the "peak season" for DX then grabbers and other
computerized aids should be superfluous, and the keen DX hunters should
be rattling away on their keys having lots of real QSOs, not surfing
the internet looking at online waterfall screens.

It seems to me that those who run grabbers and suchlike can't win, in
the eyes of the "real CW men". 

Those that provide these facilities are generally derided for spoiling
the traditions of aurally received, manually sent, telegraphy with their
computerized appliances. 

When these "appliance operators" apply themselves to other areas of
interest, and leave the LF field bereft of grabbers, they are again
derided for removing a useful tool for the "DX hunting CW man". 

Talk about double standards!

John GM4SLV