Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either )

Fixed header and post below - sorry, Dee!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:53:13 GMT, Leo wrote:


Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

No problem. Anyway just to continue, there are other occasions that people
don't give both call signs. Take a net for example. The individuals in the
net may end up never stating the net control's call sign. For example, I
might finish my turn and say "Back to net control, this is N8UZE". It
varies depending on the customs of that particular net. However, in a rag
chew, it would be difficult to completely avoid the other station's call
sign. You will probably say it at least once just to insure that you have
it correct.

I find the constant repetition of both call signs that some people do a bit
irritating actually. Once I've established the contact in case of a rag
chew, I simply use the person's name and then give my own ID as required
under the 10 minute rule. If I've got someone longwinded or am working CW,
I'll give mine each time I turn it over to them just in case they run long
enough that I might not make the 10 minute ID.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


"Leo" wrote in message
...
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either )

Fixed header and post below - sorry, Dee!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:53:13 GMT, Leo wrote:


Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so
chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require
that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The
DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a
report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say
the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Leo wrote:
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hmmm - Mike, you have raised a couple of good points there

LOL! es 73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:39:14 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Leo wrote:
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
Hmmm - Mike, you have raised a couple of good points there

LOL! es 73, Leo

Good one, Leo!

- Mike KB3EIA -






On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:39:14 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


Leo wrote:

Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -