Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20049 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 18:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 18:18:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 1308 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 18:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 18:18:23 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14TSty-0001wV-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:13:10 +0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from [194.200.20.13] (helo=mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14TStx-0001wQ-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:13:09 +0000 Received: from userak56.netscapeonline.co.uk ([62.125.132.31] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 14TSpU-0006vx-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:08:33 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3A8C0C4C.C516733E@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:05:16 +0000 From: "gii3kev" Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re. LF LDO>ZJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: LAWRENCE MAYHEAD wrote: > I personally dont think that there can be much doubt that this was a > QSO,between LDO and ZJ, with ZJ having a remote Tx at ZZs location. If there > had been a 250 mile(dist. ZZ to ZJ I belive) switch line between them, when > John identified Peters message he would have pushed the transmit button! to > reply. Since he did not have this land line he simply asked ZZ to push the > button via an 80 m link,a pretty fine distinction in my opinion.What do you > think ? 73s Laurie. With 3 operators involved in the qso regardless of the circumstances it is not a valid two way qso. Three different qth's!!!!!!!! How desperate can one get to suggest that this counts as a valid qso. Stick to the established rules that apply to all other amateur band qso's. Another factor to consider. To claim awards like dxcc etc each qso must be made from the same qth, you cannot suddenly go to another qth some miles away and continue. Except the rules have changed you cannot make say 50 qso's from the home qth and then go to a friends house a few hundred miles away and make another 50 qso's then claim the award. The point being that with the qso being discussed at the VE end two different qth's were being used and that is not valid. For a genuine valid qso each end would have to be at the same qth for transmit and receive, and certainly not involve a third operator/qth. I am always amused by what some suggest on this list when dealing with LF and wonder what is coming next!!!!!!!!!! Making up rules as they go along and chancing their arm. Do the honourable thing and aim for a proper qso. A half cooked qso would command NO respect amongst the rest of the radio amateur community. G3KEV