I sent the following ideas to my CAC rep concerning the issue of changing the ARRL DX Contest exchange: I think the ARRL exchanges should be changed, as power levels are either a) a lie, or b) obscur
== I for one am strongly in favor of the grid square info in the ARRL DX Contest exchange. I wonder about adding the STATE as it seems redundant somehow. For the DX stations trying to work all state
Bruce Lallathin wrote:== And Milt Jensen, N5IA, commented: I am strongly in favor of using the grid square designator and at the same time leaving the State as part of the exchange. Reason: In many c
Generally, I am content to read, perhaps learn from, and then delete the numerous messages that ultimately comprise a given thread. However, this one has raised my ire sufficiently to warrant a respo
I like grid squares, though I'll have to give some more thought to whether they would be a good idea in the ARRL DX test. However, reason (b) is not a reason to use grid squares. 73 - Jim K8MR in gri
My suggestions: W/VE Send Serial and State. Serial is different for every QSO. It forces the listening station to listen, and it facilitates post-contest log checking (by ARRL). State is needed for m
The Cuba Libre Contesters at V31DX ABSOLUTELY(!) agree with Paul on this. Signal reports are simply meaningless with everyone handing out 59 or 599. No copying ability is needed and they get very bor
Good point. While I think I would favor grid squares as a change, it has a disadvantage in that the logs could be checked against a database, such as Buckmaster ( and probably others ). Are we lookin
Hi Doug. What do you think we have now? The CQWW might as well not even have an exchange. Just type in a callsign and the computer fills in the rest. As far as all the other exchanges, the 599 is red
Regarding the proposed (and undisclosed) changes in the ARRL DX contest exchanges, wouldn't it be appropriate to know the purpose of the proposed changes? If we know what them dudes want to accomplis
ARRL is not WW contest and that is the problem... We here in Asiatic Russia have nothing to do in ARRL being so much dependent on propagation over the North Pole. If it were WW with say extra NA mul
That's a good point alrighty. What was that thread just passed about the "honorable" stature that ragchewing seems to enjoy? I guess the proposed changes in length and "difficulty" of contest exchan
I sent the following ideas to my CAC rep concerning the issue of changing the ARRL DX Contest exchange: I think the ARRL exchanges should be changed, as power levels are either a) a lie, or b) obscur
== I for one am strongly in favor of the grid square info in the ARRL DX Contest exchange. I wonder about adding the STATE as it seems redundant somehow. For the DX stations trying to work all state
Bruce Lallathin wrote:== And Milt Jensen, N5IA, commented: I am strongly in favor of using the grid square designator and at the same time leaving the State as part of the exchange. Reason: In many c
Generally, I am content to read, perhaps learn from, and then delete the numerous messages that ultimately comprise a given thread. However, this one has raised my ire sufficiently to warrant a respo
I like grid squares, though I'll have to give some more thought to whether they would be a good idea in the ARRL DX test. However, reason (b) is not a reason to use grid squares. 73 - Jim K8MR in gri
My suggestions: W/VE Send Serial and State. Serial is different for every QSO. It forces the listening station to listen, and it facilitates post-contest log checking (by ARRL). State is needed for m
The Cuba Libre Contesters at V31DX ABSOLUTELY(!) agree with Paul on this. Signal reports are simply meaningless with everyone handing out 59 or 599. No copying ability is needed and they get very bor
Good point. While I think I would favor grid squares as a change, it has a disadvantage in that the logs could be checked against a database, such as Buckmaster ( and probably others ). Are we lookin