Julius,
I don't see any "pro" reasons for reporting a meaningless signal report. I'd
prefer that they drop it or replace it with some meaningful exchange of
information.
Anyway, I've enjoyed the feedback and appreciate the support.
Mike N2MS
----- Original Message -----
From: Julius Fazekas
To: Edward Swynar , mstangelo@comcast.net
Cc: a Topband COL , Thomas F. Giella NZ4O
Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: AAARRRAAGH##$!@@!!
Mike,
It's been debated over and over in contesting circles. There are pros and cons.
Some have dropped it, some may never drop it. The one thing people don't need
to do is repeat it over and over when folks miss the "important" part of a
contest exchange.
As voiced on this reflector, breaking with some traditions is not an easy thing
to do, for any reason.
Not worth getting indigestion over, eh? ;o)
73,
Julius
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
http://groups.google.com/group/tcg1?hl=en
Tennessee QSO Party
http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
Elecraft K3/100 #1875
--- On Wed, 11/4/09, mstangelo@comcast.net wrote:
> From: mstangelo@comcast.net
> Subject: Re: Topband: AAARRRAAGH##$!@@!!
> To: "Edward Swynar"
> Cc: "a Topband COL" , "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O"
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:30 AM
> Let me add my pet peeve.
>
> I'm not a heavy dury contester. Mu goal is not to get on
> the top of the leaderboard or rack up points but to get
> meaningful signal reports from to determine if my latest
> antenna modifications are working. Apparently, there is an
> unwritten rule to send 59 or 599 instead of realistic
> reports. Besides being meaningless this is noise because it
> doesn't convey any information.
>
> Has this always been the case or is this a recent
> development? I've mentioned thsi to some contesters and
> theadmonish me not to rock the boat.
>
> I laso agree with Eddy. Callsigns should be exchanged for
> every QSO.
>
> Mike, N2MS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Edward Swynar
>
> To: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O , a Topband COL
>
> Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:43:21 +0000 (UTC)
>
> Subject: Re: Topband: AAARRRAAGH##$!@@!!
>
>
>
> On 4th November, Tom wrote:
>
>
>
> "...Another negative trend that I see more and more of is
> CW stations not
>
> sending QRL?"
>
>
>
> ********************************
>
>
>
> I've never actually been on a DX-pedition myself, per se
> (unless operating
>
> on Ocracoke Island in the late 90's counts for anything!),
> but I made a
>
> personal vow long, long ago, that if ever such a privlege
> did come my way, I
>
> would send my callsign on at least every third QSO that I
> made...
>
>
>
> So many DX-pedition ops these days seem to assume that
> their identity is
>
> immediately known
>
>
>
> Regularly IDs would take a LOT of frustration out of the
> equation, IMHO...
>
>
>
> ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|