LF: Re: Re: Re: CE

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	LF: Re: Re: Re: CE
From:	"Dave Pick" <[email protected]>
Date:	Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:52:41 +0100
References:	<000301c30033$554c4620$1cd1fc3e@l8p8y6> <004801c3004e$817e6820$2602a8c0@WorkGroup> <003301c30050$fffa8e20$09dc9384@jka>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	<[email protected]>

The only thing wrong with this is that you don't know whether you've
stumbled on part of a QSO or a call... although it is a technique I have
used for years (I rarely call CQ EXCEPT on LF!).

I liked the "KA" idea. I also agree with Mike's suggestion of "Q" for
quicker and "S" for slower.

Dave G3YXM.

It would seem to me that just sending one's callsign followed by "K" would
be an invitation for anyone to go ahead. The "K" would differentiate this
from a beacon where no command is given.

John Andrews, W1TAG

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: CE, hamilton mal LF: Re: CE, Laurie Mayhead LF: Re: Re: CE, Dave Pick LF: Re: Re: CE, Johan Bodin LF: Re: CE, DTX LF: CE, hamilton mal LF: Re: CE, mike.dennison LF: Re: Re: CE, John Andrews LF: Re: Re: Re: CE, Dave Pick <=

Previous by Date:	LF: Re: Re: CE, John Andrews
Next by Date:	LF: Experimentation., Ian Kyle
Previous by Thread:	LF: Re: Re: CE, John Andrews
Next by Thread:	LF: Site, Laurence J Howell
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]