Not speaking on Maarten's behalf, but a meaningless discussion is one
where the assertion being made is wrong, pointless, or has been proved
wrong several times, and/or it's the same old tired stuff.
For example, the repeated (twice every year - after SS - once for each
mode) debate about what numbers should be used for the Check in the SS
exchange is completely meaningless. No one cares (most importantly the log
checkers at the ARRL don't care) what number you use as long as you use
the same number consistently in your operation of the contest. There are
opinions that it absolutely must be the year you were first licensed - as
if it should get you DQed if you send something else and ranges from there
to it just doesn't matter. The latter is closer to correct - it really
doesn't matter to anyone. There will of course be those that say if it
doesn't matter, then the rule should be changed to say that it doesn't
matter.
That said, I always send 73 as it is my correct check - it is my first
year licensed. I also think that it makes zero difference what your check
number you choose send as all numbers can be mis-copied just as easily as
any others.
In my case, I think the sound of 73 is too familiar, so many second-guess
themselves and ask me to send it again.
The real thing to keep in mind is that the SS exchange is a brief version
of a radiogram preamble where the check would actually be the count of
words in the message. So, when the SS exchange was created, some number
had to go there, and using the last two of the first year you were
licensed was probably someone's creative idea of an easy way to get two
digits that people would remember, that would vary, and so that was chosen
to describe what number is used there. Note: There is nothing in the rules
that say you cannot use some other number you happen to like and also
there is no defined penalty for not using the actual year you were first
licensed. So, again, it really doesn't matter. So, any debate one way or
the other is completely meaningless.
73,
Bob W5OV
> I am curious as to why this is thought of as Meaningless?
>
> Honestly,
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>
> On 11/10/2010 5:57 AM, KC4HW wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2010 at 9:14, Maarten van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty
>>> sure that these "meaningless debates" will keep on going for quite a
>>> while.
>> No truer words have been spoken!
>>
>> Jim/KC4HW
>> http://www.AlabamaContestGroup.org
>> http://www.AlabamaQSOParty.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|