>everyone has their own style and this option would just support that. All I'm suggesting is that this be an option. No one would force you to use it.<
But there's a cost - additional complexity to the K3 feature set. I submit that you'd only want to do this if there's a compelling reason to do so. Simply adding a feature with little or no demonstrable use is not something I'd personally want to pester elecraft to do. Again, the K3 is already setup _ideally_ for working split (and I assume also with the sub RX installed) so I just don't see what value this adds (relative to the cost). >It's ridiculous to say that this would create QRM. We definitely want to keep those pileups pristine and without QRM and I would never suggest anything that would do that!< Well lemme put it another way - If you're in that much of a hurry to hit the key that you're unable or unwilling to do simple math on the buffer contents, you probably havn't done the necessary footwork of listening to start with. Instead, you're probably more likely to simply be adding QRM than you are to actually make the QSO. These folks are easy to pick out in the pile; they're 20 over 9 at least and endlessly call and call. Note that the DX takes a while to get back to them if they answer them at all. The chances are good the DX is using a K3 and, since the KW's are off his RX freq. he can't hear them anyway hi hi. 73, LS W5QD -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/K3-option-request-tp4884297p4885972.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
