Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6996 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2004 16:16:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 26 Dec 2004 16:16:26 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Cib1P-0003SV-RD for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:13:32 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.2] (helo=ptb-mxcore02.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Cib1P-0003SS-OQ for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:13:31 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Cib4D-0002vF-AP for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:16:25 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Cib3W-0003ur-V5 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:15:42 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Cib3W-0003ui-I7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:15:42 +0000 Received: from h36.rdg.cp.net ([209.228.29.85] helo=n082.sc1.cp.net) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Cib3S-00044Y-Hz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:15:42 +0000 Received: from l8p8y6 (62.252.228.200) by n082.sc1.cp.net (7.0.030.6) id 41C754D8000552D1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:15:31 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c4eab7$aa6e8120$c8e4fc3e@l8p8y6> From: "hamilton mal" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:26:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 209.228.29.85 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of virgin.net X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.385,HTML_20_30=0.474,HTML_FONT_BIG=0.1,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: LF: Bounty Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,HTML_20_30, HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE 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 X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

I am not a bounty hunter and would not claim any award if I happened to be the first to work a cw qso across to the USA. Whoever I work can have the two pieces of silver.

The qso should be completed within a reasonable time from the start and not a bits and pieces qso like has happened in the past, some hours, days or weeks later.

The LF business is similar to 160 metres and the qso should be conducted in the same manner. It is not a EME qso.

I am sceptical about some two way contacts that have been reported in the past. The rules were made up as they went along. I have spoken to many others engaged in LF/MF DXING and they agree with the procedures that I suggest. One station in the past in VE claiming success had his transmitting site hundreds of miles from the receiving site and it has been pointed out recently that in the past in VE the licence was issued for a site at that time and therefore using two sites invalidates the claim.

Some fair play and one set of rules should be the requirement, being first is not that important.

73 de Mal/G3KEV