Caveat Lector wrote:
The original poster sed that the DX packet Clusters were a contributing
cause of the mess on the bands.

I replied au contraire as it gives lots of info that should reduce the
chaos.

I think it does both.

I use it largely for the same thing Wes does: to help learn what
propagation is like; to help learn what DX is on; and to help learn the
operating habits of interesting DX stations.

And I certainly don't begrudge those who use packet to find where a
specific station is operating at a specific time and work them. There's
nothing wrong with that.

Packet might indeed contribute to some degree to getting callers off the
DX's frequency, people who might not have heard the DX say he's
listening up. (it is disturbing how often this is the DX's fault - how
often the DX is listening up but isn't saying so.) It might also inform
operators the DX is working by districts, or only working EU, or ???

Though really, packet shouldn't be necessary to these ends -- the DX
should be frequently indicating what they're doing, and the DX chasers
shouldn't be transmitting unless they're copying the DX well enough to
know what the DX is saying.

In what way has the clusters caused sloppiness?

In that people who can't hear/copy the DX can become aware of the DX's
presence.

In the days before spotting systems, I couldn't know FT5XO was on 21024
unless I was listening to 21024 and could copy the DX station
transmitting there. I wouldn't be calling FT5XO unless I could *hear*
FT5XO. Today, I look at DX Summit and I immediately know where the FT5
is.

===

I don't believe clusters will go away. I don't believe they *should* go
away. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the clusters
themselves or the way they're programmed.

I think the problem lies with a significant number of *users* who are
unable to operate in a sensible manner.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:14:04 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

Caveat Lector wrote:
The original poster sed that the DX packet Clusters were a contributing
cause of the mess on the bands.

I replied au contraire as it gives lots of info that should reduce the
chaos.

I think it does both.

I use it largely for the same thing Wes does: to help learn what
propagation is like; to help learn what DX is on; and to help learn the
operating habits of interesting DX stations.

And I certainly don't begrudge those who use packet to find where a
specific station is operating at a specific time and work them. There's
nothing wrong with that.

Packet might indeed contribute to some degree to getting callers off the
DX's frequency, people who might not have heard the DX say he's
listening up. (it is disturbing how often this is the DX's fault - how
often the DX is listening up but isn't saying so.) It might also inform
operators the DX is working by districts, or only working EU, or ???

Though really, packet shouldn't be necessary to these ends -- the DX
should be frequently indicating what they're doing, and the DX chasers
shouldn't be transmitting unless they're copying the DX well enough to
know what the DX is saying.

In what way has the clusters caused sloppiness?

In that people who can't hear/copy the DX can become aware of the DX's
presence.

In the days before spotting systems, I couldn't know FT5XO was on 21024
unless I was listening to 21024 and could copy the DX station
transmitting there. I wouldn't be calling FT5XO unless I could *hear*
FT5XO. Today, I look at DX Summit and I immediately know where the FT5
is.

===

I don't believe clusters will go away. I don't believe they *should* go
away. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the clusters
themselves or the way they're programmed.

I think the problem lies with a significant number of *users* who are
unable to operate in a sensible manner.

Right on.