The solutions to both the "check" and cut number pseudo-controversies are
simple.
Use Darwinism to solve the cut number problem: if you don't understand a
poor choice in cut numbers and cannot get a clarification in a reasonable
amount of time, hit escape, send NIL NIL and move on to the next guy. If you
have CT, or a logger with a similar "mults worth" calculation, use that to
determine how much time you're willing to waste on the guy. When he realizes
months later how many Qs he lost, perhaps he'll put the lost Qs and his bad
choices in cut numbers together and smarten up. Or maybe he won't. But
either way, he's not winning. As long as we keep rewarding these lids by
trying too hard to get them in our logs, the more emboldened they'll be to
continue, nay, even increase, their use of dumb cut numbers.
On the other hand, if those who know what he's sending vastly outnumber
those who don't, then who (forgive the expression) is the real dummy?
As for the "check" pseudo-controversy, just don't worry about it. Log the
check the guy sends you, send the check you wish. On Monday, kiss your
spouse good morning and let the world continue on its merry way. Indeed, it
is probably a BETTER test of your operating skill if the check isn't some
static number you can populate your database with. The check exists ONLY to
give you something to copy that will change from station to station beyond
serial number and precedence. (I can't believe that ugly non-issue has
resurfaced.)
In either case, the world will not be sent crashing into the sun because
someone doesn't operate the way you think they should.
The cut number thing really comes down to operator intelligence, or lack
thereof. And you can't legislate intelligence.
Once again, clear proof we need some sunspots.
73, Kelly
Ve4xt
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|