CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges
From: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:30:51 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Excellent point.  If everyone logs a silent 59 then it is valid!

Doug

"Those Island days are always on my mind,
Someday I'm going to leave it all behind."

-----Original Message-----


>> 1)Why ENN in cw contest is legal and silent omission  of the default
59
> in
>> SSB contest is not?
>
> The rules call for a signal report.  "ENN" is a valid signal report.
> "Silence" is not a signal report.

Hans, it is all conditional. If we all silently agree to consider
silence as 
default 59 signal report then silence IS a signal report.

>> 2)If 59 found in the log of the sender as well as in the log of the
>> recipient at the time of cross checking what is the ground for
blaming
> the
>> sender in rules violation?
>
> If the sender didn't send a report and the recipient didn't receive a
> report, but the logs show a report was exchanged then both logs are
> falsified and ought be DQ'd.

I will wait and see how many logs of  the WPX participants are going to
be 
DQed just because you said they have to be DQed :)


73, Igor UA9CDC

> 73, de Hans, K0HB/W7
> "Just a boy and his radios"


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>