Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Perhaps they just don't speak English that well, and are limited in what they can say and understand. 73. Roy N9RG On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 01:31 +, jhaynesatalumni wrote: > > I would love to have rag chews with DX stations, but in fact > I just about never answer CQs from DX stations because they > seem to automatically assume that I'm only interested in bagging > a DX QSO for DXCC or something and they terminate the contact > right away. > > Jim W6JVE > > > > > Roy G. Jackson N9RG Naples, Florida USA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
This is a problem with Yahoo Groups and some other HTML based email systems. If a person who is not fully computer savvy uses the HTML feature for the group, there is no quoting. Only those who have real email accounts pass the quoted material on without extra effort. I find this a frustration and non communicative on the part of those posters. What is worse, some groups like HFpack require this and as a result the output from that group is useless. From: Jeff Moore Reply-To: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:20:22 -0800 To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops With What? Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: Alan Wilson <mailto:ke4...@gmail.com> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I agree completely..73, Alan
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
With What? Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: Alan Wilson To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I agree completely..73, Alan
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Know what you mean there Jim. I have been doing a lot of Amtor and pactor lately. Had a opening to VK land the other day for a nice QSO for over an hour. John, W0JAB At 07:31 PM 12/27/2009, you wrote: >I would love to have rag chews with DX stations, but in fact >I just about never answer CQs from DX stations because they >seem to automatically assume that I'm only interested in bagging >a DX QSO for DXCC or something and they terminate the contact >right away. > >Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
I agree completely..73, Alan
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
When I first commented that macros were a problem I probably chose my words poorly. There is nothing wrong with macros and indeed setting them up for commonly used exchanges and information is great. From a procedural and "considerate operator" point of view I just don't think people should send brag files, long "73's" wishing everyone in the world good luck, etc. when there is a big pileup waiting to work a DX station. Keep it short and to the point so as many people as possible can work the DX. Tim, N9PUZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 1:05 PM, DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: > > > > > > I agree, they are useful for things like this. But at times!! Why, > when I have just resonded to someones call, and used his name and thanks for > a qso from Podunk city, does he need to come back and give me his name and > QTH? Its like people who dont listen to a conversation, telling you > something you just told them. Or , you listen to a guy working a pileup, and > each and every QSO he has to give the same info, in the same format etc. > etc. He is also givning each and every staiton a 59 or 599 report, even > though he had to ask them three times for his signal report, and twice for > names and QTH. You know he is just hitting a MACRO . The 100 people sitting > by trying to get his attention are all going to get the same info, in their > turn. So, it behooves us all to use them properly, and only when needed. Oh > - and Yeah, dont come to me with a Macro ON cw AT 40 WPM, if you cant read > 40 when I come back to llyou. I see way too much of that. > > > > > Danny Douglas > N7DC I agree Danny. Yesterday a Hawaii station was working a steady pile on PSK31 and each time sent his name and also sent his QTH info two times, once when giving the RST and once when signing 73. A a simpe RST would have given others a chance to work him, then QSL info perhaps every 5 minutes. Andy
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
I agree, they are useful for things like this. But at times!! Why, when
I have just resonded to someones call, and used his name and thanks for a qso
from Podunk city, does he need to come back and give me his name and QTH? Its
like people who dont listen to a conversation, telling you something you just
told them. Or , you listen to a guy working a pileup, and each and every QSO
he has to give the same info, in the same format etc. etc. He is also givning
each and every staiton a 59 or 599 report, even though he had to ask them three
times for his signal report, and twice for names and QTH. You know he is just
hitting a MACRO . The 100 people sitting by trying to get his attention are
all going to get the same info, in their turn. So, it behooves us all to use
them properly, and only when needed. Oh - and Yeah, dont come to me with a
Macro ON cw AT 40 WPM, if you cant read 40 when I come back to llyou. I see
way too much of that.
Danny Douglas
N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU
CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F
Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred,
I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
Moderator
DXandTALK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
Digital_modes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159
- Original Message -
From: F.R. Ashley
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Good points by G3OBU.
I find Macros to be quite useful. I use them to send info that is part of a
normal QSO. I use them for program operation, such as ALIGN:1500.. I imbed
Macros to log the QSO when it ends. I have macros loaded with QSO info in
several different languages. Why should I have to manually type things like
that every time I have a QSO? That makes far less sense than using a macro.
What does it matter to you if I send this info via a Macro or by typing it?
You can't tell. I make full use of macros and will continue to use them, and
you'll never know it. If you don't like them, don't use them. Or maybe turn
on your "Macro User Detector" (MUD), which immediately terminates any QSO when
a macro is detected.
Have a bitchin' 2010
Buddy WB4M
- Original Message -
From: John Netro-N9WVM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
I am not a typist when it comes to ragchewing on digi modes can't
find the letters fast enough, I don't keep my fingers on the keyboard they qay
I learned in high school typing class
if I have to type some thing to a contact I type it in while he is
sending then put the macro to finish off the qso
N9WVM
--- On Sun, 12/27/09, Music Maker wrote:
From: Music Maker
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 7:45 AM
Hi Folks,
I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate
them myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the
Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling.
I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some
underlying reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the
norm.
Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct
a conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of
doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not very
good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this dyslectic,
disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a life line.
I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am
quite happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in
a 'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and
competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole).
Just my Point of view.
John G3OBU
. . . . .
.
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "obrienaj"
wrote:
>
> I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the
Grinch on Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off
when working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed
entity , and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others
that had
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
"*Or maybe turn on your "Macro User Detector" (MUD), which immediately terminates any QSO when a macro is detected. * *Have a bitchin' 2010" Funny. philw de ka1gmn * On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, F.R. Ashley wrote: > > > > ** > *Good points by G3OBU. * > > *I find Macros to be quite useful. I use them to send info that is part > of a normal QSO. I use them for program operation, such as ALIGN:1500.. I > imbed Macros to log the QSO when it ends. I have macros loaded with QSO > info in several different languages. Why should I have to manually type > things like that every time I have a QSO? That makes far less sense than > using a macro.* > *What does it matter to you if I send this info via a Macro or by typing > it? You can't tell. I make full use of macros and will continue to use > them, and you'll never know it. If you don't like them, don't use them. Or > maybe turn on your "Macro User Detector" (MUD), which immediately terminates > any QSO when a macro is detected. * > *Have a bitchin' 2010* > ** > *Buddy WB4M* > ** > ** > > - Original Message - > *From:* John Netro-N9WVM > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Sunday, December 27, 2009 8:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops > > I am not a typist when it comes to ragchewing on digi modes can't find > the letters fast enough, I don't keep my fingers on the keyboard they qay I > learned in high school typing class > if I have to type some thing to a contact I type it in while he is sending > then put the macro to finish off the qso > N9WVM > --- On *Sun, 12/27/09, Music Maker * wrote: > > > From: Music Maker > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 7:45 AM > > > Hi Folks, > > I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate them > myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the > Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling. > > I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some underlying > reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the norm. > > Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct a > conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of > doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not > very good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this > dyslectic, disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a > life line. > > I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am quite > happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in a > 'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and > competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole). > > Just my Point of view. > > John G3OBU > > . . . . . . > > > --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. > com<http://us.mc638.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, > "obrienaj" wrote: > > > > I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch > on Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when > working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity > , and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that > had got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had > in the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged > the QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST > working? > > > > I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ? > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Good points by G3OBU. I find Macros to be quite useful. I use them to send info that is part of a normal QSO. I use them for program operation, such as ALIGN:1500.. I imbed Macros to log the QSO when it ends. I have macros loaded with QSO info in several different languages. Why should I have to manually type things like that every time I have a QSO? That makes far less sense than using a macro. What does it matter to you if I send this info via a Macro or by typing it? You can't tell. I make full use of macros and will continue to use them, and you'll never know it. If you don't like them, don't use them. Or maybe turn on your "Macro User Detector" (MUD), which immediately terminates any QSO when a macro is detected. Have a bitchin' 2010 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Netro-N9WVM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops I am not a typist when it comes to ragchewing on digi modes can't find the letters fast enough, I don't keep my fingers on the keyboard they qay I learned in high school typing class if I have to type some thing to a contact I type it in while he is sending then put the macro to finish off the qso N9WVM --- On Sun, 12/27/09, Music Maker wrote: From: Music Maker Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 7:45 AM Hi Folks, I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate them myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling. I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some underlying reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the norm. Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct a conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not very good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this dyslectic, disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a life line. I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am quite happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in a 'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole). Just my Point of view. John G3OBU . . . . . . --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch on Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity , and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that had got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had in the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged the QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST working? > > I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ? > > Andy K3UK >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
I am not a typist when it comes to ragchewing on digi modes can't find the letters fast enough, I don't keep my fingers on the keyboard they qay I learned in high school typing class if I have to type some thing to a contact I type it in while he is sending then put the macro to finish off the qso N9WVM --- On Sun, 12/27/09, Music Maker wrote: From: Music Maker Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 7:45 AM Hi Folks, I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate them myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling. I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some underlying reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the norm. Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct a conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not very good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this dyslectic, disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a life line. I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am quite happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in a 'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole). Just my Point of view. John G3OBU . . . . . . --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch on > Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when > working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity , > and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that had > got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had in > the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged the > QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST > working? > > I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ? > > Andy K3UK >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
In response to your question about digital on 160, yes there is some PSK31/Olivia/JT65 activity around 1.838, give or take. There's just not very much of it. Patrick AE5PW James French wrote: > Read this with some interest as I hate using the macros OTHER than for > helping call CQ to make contacts. > > Had my first digital QSO this last CW sweepstakes on CW actually at about 15 > wpm. Was just testing out the set up as we hadn't had time to do anything > before the contest to check out things. Had a real nice ragchew with a stat- > ion in New Mexico doing about 20wpm and I was keeping up with no problem with > my hunt and peck three fingers typing at all. > > I have had one other contact on PSK 31 after that one and was able to keep up > with no problem there also. Maybe I am a better three finger hunt and pecker > than most, but I don't see a reason for the macros personally unless you have > a problem understanding the language the other person normally uses. > > I will grant that macros are good for two things: calling CQ and to also make > quick contacts with DX stations if you know the format they want beforehand > to make the contact easier and quicker. > > I'll also admit that I do like to have a nice ragchew before a DX one-time > contact. In my opinion, DXpeditions on HF are there just for the QSL chasers > and not for those of us whole like to test our capabilities to have a contact > over a given time and distance. So far, I haven't gotten beyond Alaska and > Hawaii over the past year that I have been arranging operating times and > contesting schedules for the club Station here in Ann Arbor, MI (W8PGW and > WC8RC) but the bands haven't been open when I operate either...:( > > BTW, what has been everyones luck on 160 meters for those that operate there? > Any digital (other than CW) activity there? > > James W8ISS > > > > > Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = > 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Read this with some interest as I hate using the macros OTHER than for helping call CQ to make contacts. Had my first digital QSO this last CW sweepstakes on CW actually at about 15 wpm. Was just testing out the set up as we hadn't had time to do anything before the contest to check out things. Had a real nice ragchew with a stat- ion in New Mexico doing about 20wpm and I was keeping up with no problem with my hunt and peck three fingers typing at all. I have had one other contact on PSK 31 after that one and was able to keep up with no problem there also. Maybe I am a better three finger hunt and pecker than most, but I don't see a reason for the macros personally unless you have a problem understanding the language the other person normally uses. I will grant that macros are good for two things: calling CQ and to also make quick contacts with DX stations if you know the format they want beforehand to make the contact easier and quicker. I'll also admit that I do like to have a nice ragchew before a DX one-time contact. In my opinion, DXpeditions on HF are there just for the QSL chasers and not for those of us whole like to test our capabilities to have a contact over a given time and distance. So far, I haven't gotten beyond Alaska and Hawaii over the past year that I have been arranging operating times and contesting schedules for the club Station here in Ann Arbor, MI (W8PGW and WC8RC) but the bands haven't been open when I operate either...:( BTW, what has been everyones luck on 160 meters for those that operate there? Any digital (other than CW) activity there? James W8ISS Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
I have to agree with the original intent of this message, which seemed to be ops that take forever to end a QSO. Have seen it a few times myself, and also do not understand why the tag at the end quoting the band, frequency, mode, time, and so on. If I was one part of the QSO, I think I already know this! However, in defense of macros stating an ops equipment, personally, I like them! Maybe I don't really need to know how many pixels are on the ops monitor screen, but a list of what the other guy is using is very often a nice springboard for a subject of a good ragchew. There have been many times an op will have an antenna or tuner that I have an interest in, and asking questions about it can sure get a discussion going! Yes, macros CAN be overdone. Years back there was a software package named Lan-Link that was designed as a controller for modems like the PK-232. You could set it up to have "robot" QSOs. The software looked for key words in the received text. For example, if the other op used the word "rig", the software would respond with your canned brag message - or if he said "employed", Lan-Link would next send your career macro, and so on. While it was interesting to watch, and a hoot to try out, it wasn't my idea of amateur radio hi! I have and use regularly macros that send my equipment (not every nut & bolt!), name, QTH, and grid, CQ, QRZ, and so on. Since I only type at best around 30 WPM, sending one of those macros gives me the time it takes to send it to start typing ahead in the buffer. I don't feel I should inflict my hunt-and-peck typing "live" on anyone! While the other op is sending, I'm either cueing up a macro if appropriate, or typing ahead, so that when he gives it back to me, there aren't large gaps between words and letters. Keep the macros! Use the macros! Save the macros! 73 es Happy Holidays to all Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Music Maker Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:46 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops Hi Folks, I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate them myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling. I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some underlying reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the norm. Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct a conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not very good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this dyslectic, disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a life line. I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am quite happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in a 'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole). Just my Point of view. John G3OBU .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch on Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity , and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that had got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had in the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged the QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST working? > > I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ? > > Andy K3UK >
