Let's face reality, and call it what it is. The CQWW contests are
exchangeless contests. All you need to copy is the call. The rest is
assumed and meaningless. I've never seen a UBN report with a busted
RST or zone, only the call. Do they even check the RST or zone? Sure
makes it easier to do SO2R, when there's no exhange to copy :.)
73,
Barry W2UP
On 28 Oct 2002 DF3KV@aol.com wrote:
>
> I've just completed a token single-band entry on 10m, with
> some 300 QSOs replying to other CQ calls. In all cases my
> exchange was "Thanks one four", except very occasionally
> when I added "five nine" - it's hard to kick the habit of
> a lifetime.
>
> No-one asked for a signal report. They didn't need it
> because contest reports are always 59, they have no meaning
> or significance or value, the logging software had already
> entered 59, and we all know that signal reports are not
> cross-checked in CQWW logs.
>
> Is it time to do away with RS(T) in CQWW, or is it already
> optional?
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Looks as you have some 300 unvalid qso´s logged.
> I did about 1500 contacts and received and sent the signal
> report in ALL cases, otherwise I would have asked.
> Even with the switched off AGC because of the noise, I send
> my 59.
> To me it was not optional, but could be omitted,
>
>
> 73
> Peter
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.com
Newtown, PA Frankford Radio Club
|