On 19 Feb 2002 at 12:22, Bill@ng3k.com wrote:
> ARRL DX CW Exchange:
> 1 he: test big0gun
> 2 me: ng3k
> 3 he: ng3 599 kw
> 4 me: tu ng3k 599 md
> 5 he: r big0gun test
> This is indeed the argument for:
> 4 me: ng3k
Thanks to everyone for their responses. Not surprisingly,
not everyone sees this the same way. I am very much
persuaded by VK5GN's argument for a "joint responsibilty"
between the caller and the called though. In the
foregoing exchange, if the big0run gets my call wrong,
he's penalized. If I get his call wrong, I'm penalized.
All's well with the world.
On the other hand, if big0gun says,
3 he: ng3
I will reply,
4. me: ng3k
This leaves the conduct of the exchange in big0gun's
control. If he wants me the send the exchange at (4), he
sends his exchange at (3). If he wants to get my callsign
confirmed before going on, he sends only my partial
callsign at (3).
If the exchange transpires as originally postulated, I
will assume that big0gun has his act together and has
copied my callsign correctly.
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com