RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ

To: "'RTTY Reflector'" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Trailing CQ
From: "V Sidarau" <vs_otw@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:45:38 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Ed,

The trailing CQ (some people do QRZ...) is still quite necessary. It is a
clear message, CALL ME, I AM AVAILABLE. A call-sign printed with no trailing
CQ, QRZ or TEST means, somebody calls somebody else, or it is the end of an
EXCH message. 

73,

Vlad VE3IAE

--
 

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Muns
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:36 PM
To: 'RTTY Reflector'
Subject: [RTTY] Trailing CQ

The rationale for a trailing 'CQ' in CQ and TU messages is no more true for
RTTY than CW.  CW contesting has decades of existence proof that such a
trailing CQ is not needed, i.e., the rationale is flawed.
 
The only valid reason for the trailing 'CQ' in RTTY messages is that it has
(unnecessarily) been done that way for many years now.  RTTY contesters
expect it and can be confused if it isn't there.

The advent of RTTY Skimmer offers a good reason to stop this practice, but
changing such an entrenched technique will take concerted effort by RTTY
contesters over a long period of time.  However, the longer we wait, the
longer it will take to accomplish.

Why don't we drop 'CQ' from the end of our messages now and get on with the
transition?

Ed W0YK

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

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