Many times I am tempted to answer with my exchange at the same rate that the
other station sends his "faster to save time" 5NN.... however, that is also
counterproductive. However, many times, the Q is not asked for the needed
repeat either. If it isn't worthwhile sending the information so the rxing
station can be expected to receive it without undue stress, the information
isn't likely worth sending in the first place.
So, drop the "faster to save time" 5nn, and don't bother working any weaker
stations that might have a problem copying..... ok..
That will leave a whole lot more weaker stations for those that are willing to
be both courteous and quality operators that use every tool available to
effeciently and effectively exchange information at the most expeditious speed.
Also leaves more stations for a better Q count for others.
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:35:14 -0400
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 599
> This is exactly why I argue against people saving milliseconds by
> speeding up the sending of "5NN" on CW - in tough conditions it negates
> the value of setting up your brain for the real data to come.
> 73, Pete N4ZR
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
CQ-Contest mailing list