Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61490 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 13:47:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan02.plus.net) (212.159.14.236) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 13:47:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 63571 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 13:54:57 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore02.plus.net (212.159.14.216) by ptb-mxscan02.plus.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 13:54:49 -0000 Received: from pih-mxlast01.plus.net ([212.159.6.17]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1B3xrD-000C1t-L3 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:46:47 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by pih-mxlast01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B3xW8-00018r-Ub for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:25:01 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1B3xTr-00066K-Pu for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:22:39 +0000 Received: from [213.232.95.59] (helo=relay.salmark.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1B3xTr-00066B-0l for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:22:39 +0000 Received: from imo-m18.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.208]) by relay.salmark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B45OC-00035Q-K0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:49:20 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: WarmSpgs@aol.com Received: from WarmSpgs@aol.com by imo-m18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r1.2.) id l.79.24b32076 (4254) for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:21:58 -0500 (EST) From: WarmSpgs@aol.com Message-ID: <79.24b32076.2d8afc75@aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:21:57 EST To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: 0.3 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name Subject: Re: LF: Re: Experiment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Received-SPF: pih-mxlast01.plus.net: domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 6 In a message dated 3/17/04 6:10:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, w.bondt@belgacom.net writes: > It all started so nice , and then there was QRSS . > (snip) > I wrkd over 200 differend stations two years ago , > and only a fw are left I'm afraid I fail to see the connection here. Are you fellows seriously suggesting that QRSS somehow drove off the CW operators??? If you think about it seriously for a while, I believe you might come to the realization that much of the CW activity went away for lack of interest. Communicating on a difficult band, just for its own sake, is a challenge that loses its appeal for many people after a while, and they've gone back to HF; whereas, the digital interest (and activity) remains because it copes effectively with that kind of difficulty. >From what I read of activity levels on this reflector, there's certainly nothing about the presence of QRSS or PSK or other modes at LF to prevent those who want CW QSOs from having them. The only thing I see preventing them is a shortage of other like-minded folks. Doing away with digital modes wouldn't change that. John