[Moon] CW/WSJT

[Marko Tsekov]

Hi Joe,

I do not think  any proposal from me will be at all considered at ARRL side.
Because so many cw eme stations with long history has written many
times to ARRL in the past years and no result. I still wonder why?

This  - i do not care attitude of ARRL to us - made me feel: Who am I
for the ARRL?   Most probably - a nobody  :-(

We all know -  you have the biggest influence and  authority  in the ARRL
regarding the EME Contest rules and Awards. You are the member of VUAC
ARRL Committee. You introduced jt44 and jt65 competing in same Contest
& Awards with CW in the last 7 years.
Good or bad, you are the person playing  role of EME community world
leader for many years. So you must be the  most responsible person in
that direction.


73!   Marko   LZ2US


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Taylor" <joe at Princeton.EDU>
To: "Marko Tsekov" <lz2us at dir.bg>; "Moonbounce" <moon at moonbounce.info>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Moon] CW/WSJT


> Hi Marko,
>
> Thanks for your permission to share our private correspondence on the Moon 
> reflector.  As you suggest, there may be no particular benefit from doing 
> so; but one can always hope that there might be.
>
> I look forward to many further discussions of EME topics with you ... 
> perhaps next time in Florence, over a beer.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Taylor" <joe at Princeton.EDU>
>> To: "Marko Tsekov" <lz2us at dir.bg>
>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Moon] CW/WSJT
>>
>>> Hi Marko,
>>>
>>> Many thanks for your message.  I especially enjoyed our CW QSO in the 
>>> recent Dubus event.  When you tail-ended my QSO with SV1BTR, and I 
>>> replied (at the end of my final transmission to Jimmy) "LZ2US UP 1", it 
>>> was a particular pleasure to find you then calling me "UP 1", just as I 
>>> requested, and to quickly complete our own QSO.
>>>
>>> I quite understand your frustration with the overuse of loggers in the 
>>> EME world today -- most especially in contests, but also by DXpeditions. 
>>> If beginners want/need to make skeds, OK; that has always been a good 
>>> way to get started.  But I would much prefer to see the majority of 
>>> people calling CQ and answering CQs, without any parallel arrangements. 
>>> For some time now -- indeed, since I graduated from being an "EME 
>>> beginner" myself -- I have nearly always operated in this way.
>>>
>>> Please write to the ARRL Contest Branch and tell them that you think 
>>> loggers have no place in a contest.  Also that "Assisted" mode, if it 
>>> must exist at all, should be open to a given station ONLY ONCE.  In 
>>> subsequent years, a station who has once entered as "Assisted" should 
>>> graduate to operating with normal contest procedures, finding stations 
>>> and making QSOs without any non-radio pre-arrangement.
>>>
>>> Do you have any objection to my copying this brief private exchange of 
>>> messages to the Moon reflector?  I think it could have some beneficial 
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>>
>>> Marko Tsekov wrote:
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>> Let me first thank for the contest QSO!   Please do not understand  my 
>>>> words as personal attack!
>>>> I respect you as fine CW operator, for sure better than me.
>>>>
>>>> There is another info,   that  gives me   these thoughts.  Last year 
>>>> had agreement with EME DX pedition
>>>> (I considered the operator as very good friend of mine, we have close 
>>>> relations)  to make CW QSO. I spent  many hours to call him.
>>>> At the same time he  did  digital contacts, of course  the logger did 
>>>> the leadng role. ( I never use internet at my EME QTH.)
>>>>
>>>> This year, before  Dubus  contest had agreement with another guy (rare 
>>>> contry, I did not worked yet). I considered that
>>>> guy as my  very good friend too.  Spent few hours calling  him :-) 
>>>> Aftewr the contest I learned which stations he made at the
>>>> same time, of course the loggers did play the leading role too.Digital 
>>>> operation again.  In fact digital  operation and loggers are maried.
>>>> The practice shows  that. I trust to what I see.
>>>>
>>>> What to think or what to say?  Except ........... the logger are 
>>>> getting much  stronger than RF.
>>>> For me  the EME is very important. It is big pain   for me to see where 
>>>> it is going ............unfortunately  the role of RF is getting less
>>>> and less........  Internet  is doing the job.  Computers trying to win 
>>>> the RF :-)  Probably they won :-)   Still wonder.
>>>>
>>>> 73 Marko lz2us
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Taylor" <joe at Princeton.EDU>
>>>> To: "Marko Tsekov" <lz2us at orbinet.bg>; <moon at moonbounce.info>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:19 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Moon] Moon Digest, Vol 18, Issue 44
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marko,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody should be making excuses for anyone who exchanges
>>>>> information on a logger and improperly claims to have made
>>>>> an EME QSO -- whether in a contest or otherwise.  I
>>>>> certainly do not excuse such behavior.  (I also think that
>>>>> the use of loggers should not be permitted in contests, but
>>>>> that's another matter.)
>>>>>
>>>>> My count shows that 59 logs were submitted for the 2007 ARRL
>>>>> EME Contest in the Digital and Mixed (unassisted)
>>>>> categories.  My log is one of them.  I know that there was
>>>>> no use of any loggers or other aids in my station, during
>>>>> the contest.  I certainly do not agree, as you seem to be
>>>>> suggesting, that "most" (or even "many") digital or "mixed"
>>>>> operators behaved in any dishonorable way during the contest.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>>>>
>>>>> Marko Tsekov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anyone thinks it desirable to have an unassailable
>>>>>>> measure of "transferred information" in a contest, let there
>>>>>>> be a contest that requires QSO serial numbers or some other
>>>>>>> variable information that cannot possibly be known in
>>>>>>> advance -- and let the information be measured by Klaus's
>>>>>>> quantitative criterion based on the number of possible
>>>>>>> outcomes and their relative frequency of appearance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good idea  but .............
>>>>>> It is not   very simple to be made.   All information that  I have
>>>>>> show that
>>>>>> most of  "digital" operators are  in connection via loggers and so 
>>>>>> on.
>>>>>> Perhaps it is  not   necessary to prove what I said :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73 de Marko LZ2US
>>