I remember in discussions of contesting strategies during the '70's, there
was the idea that the better signal report you sent the other guy, the
"snappier" his response to you would be, saving you time. If you sent 569
for example, he would likely repeat his exchange. But if you sent 599 he
would think his signal was strong enough for you to get the exchange sent
only once. With computer logging 599 became "set in stone".
Ted W4NZ
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of k7qq@netzero.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:06 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Re: 59(9) all the time!
I don't think that the ARRL can be consider at fault for 59/9 reports I
rembember using these type of reports because it was a big bother with the
paper logs to enter each RS/T individually so I would enter 59 at the top
of the column and draw a line from top to bottom. I doubt this was
necessary but that is the way I did it with the CQ 40 contacts per page or
ARRL 50 per page.
This old fellow W5FG in all probability hasn't been very active in
contesting for a while.
Quack 77 and counting
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|