Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Why\s+send\s+599\s+report\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+Why\s+send\s+599\s+report\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Russell Blair <russell_blair86@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:15:40 -0800 (PST); Why not do away with sending 599 when all the logging programs put in for you anyway, its just a symbolic. Russell NC5O " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00428.html (7,013 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: William Smith <bill.n3xl@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:36:40 -0800 (PST); Russell, 599 is the content of the message. Nice to have SOMETHING in the message besides just a serial number, which can be considered as message originator's serial number. I agree that 599 is symb; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00430.html (7,859 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:48:18 -0600; I'm all for abolishing RST in contests but only if it's replaced with something else. I really like the ARRL Sweepstakes exchange. One of the BARTG test uses time, which I also like. -- Peter Laws |; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00433.html (7,506 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:08:55 -0800; JARTS one is good. Keeps your interest up watching for what is coming up, instead of mindlessly clicking on it. And get a chuckle from the bashful 00 that are sent :-). 73 Chen, W7AY ________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00435.html (7,681 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Ktfrog007@aol.com; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:27:23 -0500 (EST); The simplest challenging thing to send is just a serial number. In the upcoming WPX contest, dump the obligatory and meaningless 599 and keep all else the same. Serial number contests are my least fa; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00436.html (8,304 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: W4LA@aol.com; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:53:00 -0500 (EST); Bill, I agree with you. There has to be something exchanged, otherwise one could just copy calls and say they were contacts! There will always be those who want to harvest the crops without planting; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00437.html (8,573 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Doug McDuff <w4ox@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:47:10 +0000; There you go again, trying to increase macro length and waste time. 4 numbers for time for instance, versus only 3 for RST. I will leave it to Bill to calculate how many minutes would be wasted over; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00442.html (9,174 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Glenn Wyant <va3dx@sympatico.ca>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:41:12 -0500; Same old stuff , over and over again. After every contest the same folks want to change the rules in some way. I just operate the contest according to the sponsers rules, and have fun. Glenn VA3DX __; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00448.html (9,448 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Wa3frp <wa3frp@aol.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:44:45 -0500; This talk about dropping RST from RTTY contest exchanges and contest exchanges in general made me think about the earliest RTTY contest. This was held by the RTTY Society of Southern California from; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00453.html (8,197 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:45:47 -0600; You're confusing two things, perhaps on purpose. Whether an exchange includes one piece of information (other than callsign) like RTTY RU or 4 like SS has nothing to do with how efficiently that info; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00454.html (8,728 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: W4LA@aol.com; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:07:14 -0500 (EST); Good for you Glen. Me too! 73's, Todd / W4LA In a message dated 1/13/2011 4:41:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, va3dx@sympatico.ca writes: Same old stuff , over and over again. After every contest the; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00468.html (9,737 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:12:01 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Most folks including me agree, but it's up to the contest sponsors. For now, most rules require it. Theoretically, if you don't send it you could get disqualified, although I; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00477.html (8,934 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:17:33 -0800; How about a contest where the only exchange is a signal report, but it must be an honest one? Any log with all 599's would be DQ'd. It could be automated. There is software right now which can read t; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00479.html (8,643 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: "jim" <wb5aaa@windstream.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:24:48 -0600; Why not have everyone turn on WSPR for the 24hours then turn in that log HI HI Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. "Calvin Coolidge" 30th Pres of U.S.A(1923-1929); /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00482.html (9,346 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:10:48 -0600; 1) Everyone's setup is different and 2) few radios follow the "Collins Standard" (50 uV at the antenna terminals) ... or any other standard! Even if everyone had similar stations and all RSSIs met so; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00485.html (9,398 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: "Vladimir Sidorov" <vs_otw@rogers.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:27:00 -0500; Bill, With due respect... - How do you know about "most folks"? Was there any poll on that or what? - I for one truly support the 599 as a part of exchange. As a matter of fact it is meaningless as a; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00486.html (10,345 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:12:21 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: How do I know? Because until today with your post, every post commenting in it has been in favor of removing 599 from the exchange. You are the first to want to keep it, at l; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00490.html (9,559 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Fabi va2up <va2up@live.ca>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:21:38 -0500; I think 599 is there to stay as a matter of 'form and timing'. It's an indicator and it sets the 'beat' of the exchange (as in cw). In a pileup you can tell the exchange just by the sound and 599 is; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00492.html (12,252 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:58:31 -0700; I guess I'm in the silent minority then.; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00495.html (9,616 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] Why send 599 report (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:22:45 -0800; Don't sell yourself short, Jim. You might be in the silent majority. 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/ma; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-01/msg00497.html (9,428 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]