[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] 599

To: <n4zr@contesting.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 599
From: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:06:49 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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: n4zr@contesting.com
> To: cq-contest@contesting.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

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