[arrl-odv:24139] Re: RHR Add on Adjacent Page to K1ZZ Artiicle
No remote ops complaints by major and casual DXers alike in my Division either. Feedback received directly and read on area DX reflectors is actually positive. 73, Brian N5ZGT
On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:33, <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> wrote:
I'm fascinated by the degree to which this issue appears to be regionalized. I haven't had a single complaint up here in 1-land.
Does anyone want a venture a guess as to why this is?
73, Mike K1TWF
On 04/02/15, JRS<jrs@hamradio.us.com> wrote:
Marty
I am President of CTDXCC and I spoke to TDXS at their February meeting.
I asked for a vote of all present as to approval/disapproval of the DXCC remote rules: the ARRL lost — unanimously — in both meetings. There is no joy in Mudville.
73
-----------------------------------------------------
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
-----------------------------------------------------
On 4/2/15 9:01 AM, n6vi@socal.rr.com wrote: I spoke at the San Diego DX Club meeting last Thursday. When I discussed the remote-operation DXCC rule change, no one in attendance voiced any concern over the change, the existence of RHR, the advertisement or its placement.I wonder how many of those who are complaining paid someone to install and / or maintain their towers and antennas.73,Marty N6VI_______________________________________________arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Sorry, "actually" was supposed to be "unanimously". Brian
On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:54, Brian Mileshosky <n5zgt@swcp.com> wrote:
No remote ops complaints by major and casual DXers alike in my Division either. Feedback received directly and read on area DX reflectors is actually positive.
73, Brian N5ZGT
On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:33, <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> wrote:
I'm fascinated by the degree to which this issue appears to be regionalized. I haven't had a single complaint up here in 1-land.
Does anyone want a venture a guess as to why this is?
73, Mike K1TWF
On 04/02/15, JRS<jrs@hamradio.us.com> wrote:
Marty
I am President of CTDXCC and I spoke to TDXS at their February meeting.
I asked for a vote of all present as to approval/disapproval of the DXCC remote rules: the ARRL lost — unanimously — in both meetings. There is no joy in Mudville.
73
-----------------------------------------------------
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
-----------------------------------------------------
On 4/2/15 9:01 AM, n6vi@socal.rr.com wrote: I spoke at the San Diego DX Club meeting last Thursday. When I discussed the remote-operation DXCC rule change, no one in attendance voiced any concern over the change, the existence of RHR, the advertisement or its placement.I wonder how many of those who are complaining paid someone to install and / or maintain their towers and antennas.73,Marty N6VI_______________________________________________arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (2)
-
Brian Mileshosky -
vze18vwgu＠verizon.net