On Nov 17, 2008, at 7:23 PM, John Brosnahan -- W0UN wrote:
> At 17-11-08 16:24, you wrote:
>> I think folks are taking the comments too literally. I think the
>> requirement/rule that it be part of the exchange is unnecessary.
>> We've already, as operator a communicating with operator b, provided
>> that piece of information. The comments you are receiving are
>> exactly that it seems redundant in the rules and the rules should
>> be changed.
>>
>> I never ignored the exchange and provided on each and every QSO I
>> made. It's the requirement. It doesn't mean I and others don't think
>> it should be reviewed and considered for removal.
>>
>> And if the N1MM generated cabrillo output is an indication, it isn't
>> part of the exchange as I discussed in my reply that you clipped.
>> The order doesn't matter, as already discussed, but the call sign,
>> as part of the report, is NOT in the cabrillo file. Lets look at the
>> spec from
>> <http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/qso-template.html>http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/qso-template.html
>> . below is a snippet. Not sure how it will come out to folks email
>> but they can see it on the referenced page.
>
>
> Cabrillo is not the sponsor of the contest, the ARRL is, so the
> Cabrillo output is not an indication. Here is the ARRL rule on the
> exchange and the example. Look closely at the example, it
> illustrates the rule perfectly. I don't see how it could be any
> plainer.
>
While Cabrillo is "not the sponsor", it is how almost all the logs
come in. I'll have to take a look at how some other programs produce
their Cabrillo for the contest, but it appears that one of the most
popular loggers does not. That means a lot of logs that are not
"correct". Yet they have all the elements of the exchange, but not in
exact order.
Of course ARRL won't DQ those logs. They are in the game of putting on
a contest, and they want people to participate.
> If you don't want this in the rules then lobby to change it. Others
> seem perfectly happy to maintain the tradition of the rule and even
> find the "extra" call sign to be a benefit.
Absolutely, And I hope that we're allowed to discuss it to try to
change it - or not.
The entire subject would be avoided if the exchange consisted of items
that weren't already exchanged once. The person already has the
callsign. Making them repeat it as part of the exchange is the exact
same thing as requiring everyone to make the entire exchange twice,
and if you don't, fuggidaboudit! All just a difference of magnitude.
It's goofy, and it leads to unproductive discussions such as the one
we are in now.
So yes, it is an awkward rule at the very best, and I am very happy to
lobby for a change.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|