Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length
From:	"Mike Dennison" <[email protected]>
Date:	Tue, 25 May 1999 11:09:49 +0100
In-reply-to:	<[email protected]>
Organization:	Radio Society of Great Britain
Priority:	normal
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	<[email protected]>

> On the subject of QRSs, it may be useful to list a few abbreviations
> which are acceptable. For instance, DJ5BV did not send QRZ? to
> me, he just sent ?? which was clearly understood. A replacement
> for 73 would be useful - what about just TU (meaning 'thank you' for
> anyone who hasn't done HF CW recently)?

I'm preferring CU (*SEE* YOU) since that's what has happened
or should be...

54°16'N / 10°04'E, JO54ag
73 es gl de Peter, DF3LP


Yes, of course.





Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT)
http://www.dennison.demon.co.uk/activity.htm

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: Spectrogram dot length, Mike Dennison Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length, Peter W. Schnoor Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length, Mike Dennison <= Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length, M. Bruno

Previous by Date:	LF: Week-end LF report, Yasmin Tour Agenzia Viaggi
Next by Date:	LF: Packet Cluster, Dave Sergeant
Previous by Thread:	Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length, Peter W. Schnoor
Next by Thread:	Re: LF: Spectrogram dot length, M. Bruno
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]