[Moon] Re: [Moon-net] QSO or not

[Dimitris Vitorakis]

Hello Gerard

i can answer to u in each and every one of the points you made, 
analytically. It is very easy to me. But i don't think you and friends will 
necessarily like what i will say. So as Moon-net reflector is not the place 
(from what W9IP has repeatedly said) to carry over a constructive debate (as 
it may end up in a firy debate, not to mention that the word constructive 
may mean nothing to you & some of your dear friends) , i will be happy to at 
least not dissapoint you by providing in reply some brief answers:

a. I am not active on logger monitoring or logger addicted (or even present) 
when working EME. As Internet chat & skeds are not my cup of tea. It is not 
my style of enjoyment and pleasure. But even though i was not logged 
personally, as u need to log in on4kst chat from what i understand, other 
people being present let me know of this development. This, to me, was 
interesting from a technical perspective as i wrote. Of course noone really 
reads the mails one might send in a polite manner and understand what they 
mean, so it is inevitable to find yourself accused and your words badly 
twisted. It certainly seems to me that some particular mixed and digital 
stations are expert in abusing the meaning of words. I am not surprised 
anymore how much they have contributed to the overall degrade of EME history 
& achievements.
b. JT65 is indeed a FB invention from a technical perspective (if one takes 
out Deep Search - personal view). My credit solely goes to the developer of 
the software.
c.  The times i went on expeditions (3) were many years ago and i am sorry 
to say they were in cw eme and never ever heard your callsign! I am sorry to 
dissapoint you over a new exotic DXCC, but it is not interesting to me to go 
on such a digital dxpedition as i am not active on that mode. Besides, I do 
not like QSOs dependent on Internet (for most unfortunately, even though it 
should and certainly could be different). Of course, i can announce i go on 
a mixed dxpedition and work only cw. I say that because in the last 4-5 yrs 
all, except 1 or 2, dxpeditions on 2m announced they will work both modes 
but worked only digital. So i prefer to tell you the truth and not put smoke 
in people's eyes.
d. Congrats on RO coupled with callsigns during the LX expedition. Very good 
indeed!

I think Bernd and Frank should not depend their future expeditions on my 
comments. Besides, as i wrote twice, my comments were not made with 
reference to them but to the technical aspect of the mode used and why what 
happened had happened. When Bernd's reply came i immediately answered and 
accepted it in good faith. But noone reads what others really write. Anyway, 
as you said, there are a lot of people out there getting pleasure from such 
QSOs, so both the dxpeditioners and the ones working them, should not be 
deprived of that pleasure since it fullfills their notion of what is EME and 
how it should be worked.

73,
Jimmy SV1BTR

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerard van den Berg" <info at pe1btx.nl>
To: <moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: [Moon-net] QSO or not


> Dear all, sorry for this bandwidt but
>
> I just now noticed that I'm more or less in the middle of the JT65 DS 
> discussion in the ZB2 expd.
> After all the discussions on JT65 versus CW I feel it's time for a little 
> reflection from my side.
> Let me 1st of all tell you that I'm not pro or contra CW neither pro or 
> contra JT65
>
> I'm "PRO this hobby" no matter what modes are used during what 
> propogations used.
> My opinion is that for a complete QSO you will need 2 parties to make it 
> complete,
> wether you use JT65 or CW, both times errors can accure, mistakes can be 
> made.
> You can "think" that you hear a certain call in CW when you listen long 
> enough to noise.
> Also their are examples for false decodes by JT65 users.
> I liked the common from EA6VQ approx one year ago to do a CW EME contest 
> only for opr's that
> had delated their mind from previous worked CW stations.
> Please let us stop this silly discussions and try to enjoy our hobby 
> again.
> It's sad to see Jimmy spending so much time hunting JT65 errors that it 
> looks like becoming his religion.
> It's also funny to see Jimmy copieing my commonts from the KST chat, I 
> wonder Jimmy how you are
> logged in (fake call) as no one of us ever saw you their, are you secretly 
> watching us making JT65 QSO's
> hidden from behind a bush?
> Please Jimmy, come out and play it fair, admit that JT65 is a wunderfull 
> invention in this hobby giving
> loads of Ham's lot's of plessure just like CW does.
> OK, you may not like the mode for what ever reasons but please stop 
> annoing us.
>
> Jimmy, it's a pitty you did not paste all my commonts from KST in your 
> mail, my suggestion was to avoid
> this possible RO errors to do the same as we (PA2CHR/PE1LWT/PA3FPQ/PE1BTX) 
> did during the november
> expedition to LX, we send RO text files  like   RO BTX MHE when working 
> JH0MHEin the pile up.
>
> I understood from Bernd that it was a copy / paste typo error, but even 
> when it was not, you still need
> 2 stations to complete a QSO,  in this case it was easy for me to claim 
> ZB2 as complete but for what?
> I'm only fooling with myselve, so what's the fun?
>
> I hope the commonts from Jimmy will not stop Bernd and Frank to go on 
> expedition again, they did a
> wunderfull job end gave a lot of people a new DXCC.
>
> Great job Bernd and Frank, despite my NC it was an FB operation, pse go on 
> like this.
>
> P.S. Jimmy, when will you do an expedition to a rare DXCC ??
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at 
> http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>