Robert Naumann wrote:
snip
When someone sends "cut numbers" the intention is to abbreviate a
particular
message and therefore accelerate completion of the qso. I think
that
"standard" use of cut numbers is OK, i.e.; 5NN, 5NN T5, 5NN 1TT1,
etc. Even an occasional ENN for 5NN is OK, but the
receiver(operator) should be
capable of translating this to the actual exchange information.
I don't
think anyone thinks that 5NN is intended report, and we all
should recognize that 599 is, in fact, the actual report.
A receiving station that is unable to make this translation while
operating needs more practice.
snip
Well Bob, you and I are going to have to disagree on this one.
While I concur that the examples you give above are acceptable
because all are widely understood, I am not going to sacrifice my
rate at the expense of having to figure out what was in fact sent
just so you can gain a few microseconds. If you think the 1000s
of qsos you get from just the "little pistols" are worth those
microseconds, fine, that's your decision. But you're going to
lose out on a lot more contacts.
Incidentally, on your remarks on the QSLs received, if a station
logged you as VUBO, how the hell did he figure out who to send
the card to?
Best
Ed
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|