ron w3wn wrote:
> By the same token, while I agree in principle that HOW you send the signal
> report may not always be strictly defined, and that different operators
> may
> have different styles... I disagree that silence is a substitute for the
> signal report and/or implies the default 59(9) report. In other words:
> No
> RS(T) is no RS(T).
Ron, since you adreed that HOW the to send the report is not defined, then
imagine that Ranko did send it but at such a low voice or at such a high
pitch or at such a high speed that it did not get through the filter of the
radio. Yet the other part of QSO got it correct as it is reflected in both
logs.
Why don't we try to blame Ranko in use of non amateur radio means of
communication and DQ him on that grounds?
N7MAL wrote:
>"V. Exchange: RS(T) report plus a progressive contact three-digit serial
>number"""
>The thread then took 2 different tracks: One followed the necessity for the
>signal report in a contest exchange. The other went off track about what a
>signal report means etc.
May I suggest another off track subject?
I had several stations calling me in the contest and giving me "number One"
ot "Twenty five" instead of "zero zero one" or "zero twenty five" as the
above quoted rule specifically requires.
Shall I delete these QSOs from my log as incomplete?
Shall those participants be DQed for violation of the rule?
April the 1st continues :)
73, Igor UA9CDC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|