Just a quick question... with follow-ups.
At any time in contesting was the signal report considered important enough
to be a true RST rather than the standard 599?
If so, why did that change?
If not, why is it being used at all?
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of w5ov@w5ov.com
> Sent: February 21, 2008 23:32
> To: Paul O'Kane
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?
>
> EI5DI said:
> > It is broke! It has been broken for over 20 years - since computer
> > logging became the norm.
> >
> > CT, the first major contest logger, had no provision for
> logging RST
> > Sent as anything other than 59(9). Since then, the
> mindless exchange
> > of 59(9) has become redundant.
> >
>
> Paul,
>
> 599, or more accurately 5NN has been the default signal
> report for at least the 35 years that I have been contesting
> / DXing and probably goes back even longer than that.
>
> I think it might be more accurate to say that CT followed the
> de facto standard of logging 599 as the sent RST instead of
> causing it.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|