If you want to get technical, geographic names has been a "standard" much longer than the ICAO phonetics. However, it is fine with me if you insist on using the ICAO phonetics when in a DX pileup. That just means that I am generally going to work the DX first!
As I keep saying, there is a place for ICAO phonetics and there is a place for geographic names. I do use ICAO phonetics when working stateside and generally with operators who speak English as their primary language. But, when in a pileup trying to work a DX station I definitely switch to geographical names because I work the DX MUCH sooner! Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, John Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > From: John Becker <[email protected]> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ITU Phonetics - Kilo > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 4:43 PM > At 02:34 PM 4/10/2011, you wrote: > >Again, geographical names have become the defacto > "standard" where working DX is concerned. > > So we are having a QSO and I tell you my QTH is Louisiana, > Missouri > and you then think to yourself "say what" followed be "does > not compute" > > Look it up at QRZ dot com. > > Again there is nothing wrong with the standard > > I for one will never use your "de facto" standard when > there is already one > that has been in use for years and years and years. > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. > Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur > satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
