So, ignore it and it will go away.
You're right, that is simple.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Taylor [mailto:ve4xt@mts.net]
> Sent: February 19, 2008 14:12
> To: vo1he@rac.ca; 'Tom Osborne'; 'CQ-Contest'
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] DUMB CUT NUMBER
>
> The solutions to both the "check" and cut number
> pseudo-controversies are simple.
>
> Use Darwinism to solve the cut number problem: if you don't
> understand a poor choice in cut numbers and cannot get a
> clarification in a reasonable amount of time, hit escape,
> send NIL NIL and move on to the next guy. If you have CT, or
> a logger with a similar "mults worth" calculation, use that
> to determine how much time you're willing to waste on the
> guy. When he realizes months later how many Qs he lost,
> perhaps he'll put the lost Qs and his bad choices in cut
> numbers together and smarten up. Or maybe he won't. But
> either way, he's not winning. As long as we keep rewarding
> these lids by trying too hard to get them in our logs, the
> more emboldened they'll be to continue, nay, even increase,
> their use of dumb cut numbers.
>
> On the other hand, if those who know what he's sending vastly
> outnumber those who don't, then who (forgive the expression)
> is the real dummy?
>
> As for the "check" pseudo-controversy, just don't worry about
> it. Log the check the guy sends you, send the check you wish.
> On Monday, kiss your spouse good morning and let the world
> continue on its merry way. Indeed, it is probably a BETTER
> test of your operating skill if the check isn't some static
> number you can populate your database with. The check exists
> ONLY to give you something to copy that will change from
> station to station beyond serial number and precedence. (I
> can't believe that ugly non-issue has
> resurfaced.)
>
> In either case, the world will not be sent crashing into the
> sun because someone doesn't operate the way you think they should.
>
> The cut number thing really comes down to operator
> intelligence, or lack thereof. And you can't legislate intelligence.
>
> Once again, clear proof we need some sunspots.
>
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|