Tonno,
I disagree. In your example below YOU may know you have A call
correctly, but all I know is that you've got IK. There are a large
number of valid US and VE prefixes that you could have heard in a pileup
prior to hearing IK. Therefore as the S&P station, all I know is that
you copied IK, because that's all you've sent back to me. As the
running station you have some insurance that I know your call, since
theoretically you're sending it after every q, or at least after every 2
or 3 q's. If I miss it, or screw it up I can listen to you work other
guys. As the S&P station, the best chance I have to KNOW that you got
my call correct is to demmand that you verify it before I give you my
exchange. Otherwise I may get lost in a pileup.
73 de Al, KE1FO
Tonno Vahk wrote:
>I don't quite agree that you should always demand for you call repetition.
>
>For example:
>TEST ES5TV
>N1IK
>IK 5NN A5
>N1IK 5NN 5
>TU
>
>In that case I clearly say that I have got your call and I am sure abt it.
>Why would you question me? It is exactly the same way I trust you when you
>answer my CQ and do not say my call, I trust you have got it correct. I do
>not demand you to repeat my call, do I?
>
>Actually I find it more beneficial in SSB not repeating the full calls all
>the time when I am 100% sure, especially with 6 digit EU calls and they very
>rarely ask for confirmation.
>
>73
>tonno
>es5tv
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Lambert" <n1ik@n1ik.com>
>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Sent: 3. august 2005. a. 4:08
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
>
>
>
>
>>You are exactly right, Al.
>>
>>I am relatively new to this sport, but when the DX station doesn't repeat
>>my
>>call properly, and calls QRZ, I will stay on frequency and hammer him/her
>>unil I hear my call properly. Sometimes this take N tries as the rate
>>hounds will try to brush you off. But I stick with it. I need to hear my
>>call come back, cleanly, before I will move on.
>>
>>I am always amazed at how some stations are willing to suffer UBN's for
>>high
>>rate.
>>
>>Best 73,
>>
>>Brian, N1IK
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alfred J. Frugoli
>>(KE1FO)
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:12 AM
>>To: Lance
>>Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
>>
>>You should be penalized because you didn't verify that they had your call
>>correctly. Typo's into the log will never work out right with the penalty
>>rule, but the idea is that each contact is an accurate *2 way* exchange of
>>information. You have 2 responsibilities during the exchange - that you
>>copy his info correctly, and you make sure he copies your info correctly.
>>
>>73 de Al, KE1FO
>>
>>Lance wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Amen! I've been penalized because "they" entered NW0L or KN0L, etc!
>>>I got their calls correctly, why should I be penalized for their
>>>
>>>
>>mistake(s)?
>>
>>
>>>73, WN0L
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: <K3BU@aol.com>
>>>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:39 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In a message dated 8/1/2005 7:38:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>k9gx@n4gn.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Fortunately beyond just making the Qs one must copy and log calls
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>exchanges correctly.<<
>>>>
>>>>...and pray that other people log YOU correctly, don't delete you from
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>their
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>log (M/S "timing thing"), they don't press wrong key or computer
>>>>doesn't
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>wipe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>bunch of QSOs or you will be punished with 4 QSO's removal "to punish
>>>>you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>sloppy logging and teach you a lesson how to log properly".
>>>>Isn't it time to remove this 3 QSO "penalty" stuff?
>>>>It was meant to punish those who left the dupes in their old paper
>>>>logs,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>when
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>you had the control over duping and it was justified then, but now?
>>>>
>>>>73 Yuri
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>73 de Al, KE1FO
>>www.ke1fo.info
>>
>>--
>>
>>Reclaim Your Inbox!
>>http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
--
73 de Al, KE1FO
www.ke1fo.info
--
Reclaim Your Inbox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|