I strongly agree with Mr. Bryant on this. DXing is a very individual
activity. Some people meticulously spend hours on a particular frequency. I
had a friend who was that way. He was incredibly thorough but he never ended
up with many stations.

That doesn't work for me. My attention span is too short to start with. If I
can ID a station in two minutes, then that leaves me a lot more time
available in that window to pull in even more stations.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with using another person's database to make an
ID easier. It's no different than using a digital display on a radio to find
out where you are on the dial. Some purists would rather dx by ear only, and
that's fine too.

Most importantly, though, DXing should be fun.

lsmyer wrote:

I strongly agree with Mr. Bryant on this. DXing is a very individual
activity. Some people meticulously spend hours on a particular frequency. I
had a friend who was that way. He was incredibly thorough but he never ended
up with many stations.

That doesn't work for me. My attention span is too short to start with. If I
can ID a station in two minutes, then that leaves me a lot more time
available in that window to pull in even more stations.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with using another person's database to make an
ID easier. It's no different than using a digital display on a radio to find
out where you are on the dial. Some purists would rather dx by ear only, and
that's fine too.

Most importantly, though, DXing should be fun.

Yes, but Bryant is not actually ID'ing the stations. He's running down a list
(someone elses). That's OK, however since he has no real idea that that station
is actually using that frequency at that time and place, he can at best put a
tentative or presumed next to each log.

Simply following someones list is a good way to confuse things as that station
may or may not actually be the one he's hearing.

He's just guessing, hoping that the list is accurate.

He doesn't even know what country RTM-Sarawak is in, so he's certainly no dx'er.

dxAce

In article ,
"lsmyer" wrote:

I strongly agree with Mr. Bryant on this. DXing is a very individual
activity. Some people meticulously spend hours on a particular frequency. I
had a friend who was that way. He was incredibly thorough but he never ended
up with many stations.

That doesn't work for me. My attention span is too short to start with. If I
can ID a station in two minutes, then that leaves me a lot more time
available in that window to pull in even more stations.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with using another person's database to make an
ID easier. It's no different than using a digital display on a radio to find
out where you are on the dial. Some purists would rather dx by ear only, and
that's fine too.

Most importantly, though, DXing should be fun.

Well I strongly disagree. If you are going to post that you heard a
certain station on a frequency at some time then you would have to
listen long enough to identify that station. The time to do this could
be just a minute if you happen to tune in at just the right time to
catch an ID but that is not going to happen on a list like the one
presented.

Like I stated, best case, he is ASSUMING the ID of the station based on
SOMEONE ELSE'S HARD WORK that spent the time listening to their radio.

A log list that someone has taken the time to verify (ID) is worth
reading and that's not Bryant's list.

He probably just made the up the list anyway so you want to argue over
nothing?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Agreed totally. My method (and people can criticize it but it is the way I
enjoy creating my own logs) is to scan through the entire sw spectrum within
an hour. I don't try to identify every signal I can hear...I try to stick
with English language transmissions, or at least, interesting music. I then
use references such as Prime Time Shortwave, Passport and Monitoring times
to identify the stations. Generally it is fairly obvious if you can figure
out what the station is...if not I leave it as unidentified for now and move
on. Sometimes the ID's are stumbled upon by identifying parallel frequencies
with the same program.

Is this stealing someone else's work? I don't think so. It is using whatever
data I can to identify what I'm hearing, and I think this is totally correct
and appropriate for me. Otherwise, what else do you use all the available
data for? With this method I can do a band scan for each hour of the day and
compile my own logs, which I update twice each Summer and twice each Winter.
If someone states that you are stealing someone else's work unless you
listen to each signal until you hear an ID they are applying their personal
preferences in how to create logs onto everyone else and frankly I don't see
how anyone has the right to do that.

I realize I may get flamed for writing this and that's one of the reasons I
seldom post to this group these days but felt it was necessary to speak my
piece.

Jay



"lsmyer" wrote in message
...
I strongly agree with Mr. Bryant on this. DXing is a very individual
activity. Some people meticulously spend hours on a particular frequency.
I
had a friend who was that way. He was incredibly thorough but he never
ended
up with many stations.

That doesn't work for me. My attention span is too short to start with. If
I
can ID a station in two minutes, then that leaves me a lot more time
available in that window to pull in even more stations.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with using another person's database to make
an
ID easier. It's no different than using a digital display on a radio to
find
out where you are on the dial. Some purists would rather dx by ear only,
and
that's fine too.

Most importantly, though, DXing should be fun.

In article , "Jay"
writes:



Is this stealing someone else's work? I don't think so. It is using whatever
data I can to identify what I'm hearing, and I think this is totally correct
and appropriate for me. Otherwise, what else do you use all the available
data for?

Agree, why NOT use whatever data is available;
- No real sense in reinventing the wheel...

If your star gazing, you use a guide to the planets and stars ,
coordinated for your time, season and latitude.

If you're bird watching, you use a guide; "that looks like a"..
Not a shotgun, bird dog and dissecting tools
:-)


With this method I can do a band scan for each hour of the day and
compile my own logs, which I update twice each Summer and twice each Winter.
If someone states that you are stealing someone else's work unless you
listen to each signal until you hear an ID they are applying their personal
preferences in how to create logs onto everyone else and frankly I don't see
how anyone has the right to do that.

Theres a lot of petty jealousy in the world...

I realize I may get flamed for writing this and that's one of the reasons I
seldom post to this group these days but felt it was necessary to speak my
piece.

Jay

Theres a lot of petty jealousy in the world...

Dan / NYC

Diverd4777 wrote:

Agree, why NOT use whatever data is available;
- No real sense in reinventing the wheel...

I was led to believe all those lists were published just so people COULD
use them in their short wave listening. Making life easier for your
fellow man...it costs so little..sniff...


mike (the selfless) II

m II wrote:

Diverd4777 wrote:

Agree, why NOT use whatever data is available;
- No real sense in reinventing the wheel...

I was led to believe all those lists were published just so people COULD
use them in their short wave listening. Making life easier for your
fellow man...it costs so little..sniff...

You've (and others) have totally missed my point... why am I not surprised?

dxAce

dxAce wrote:

I was led to believe all those lists were published just so people COULD
use them in their short wave listening. Making life easier for your
fellow man...it costs so little..sniff...


You've (and others) have totally missed my point... why am I not surprised?

It was cleverly hidden under that hat!



mike