Sam,
You say: "No no no,I like it, we need this" (regarding ENN, SNN, 5NN or
599
A little bit further down, the same LY5W writes: "I hate (HATE) those
callers who are using CQ TEST YA0YA YA0YA TEST"
In my honest opinion Sam, your argumentation is inconsistent. In the first
place we "need" lots of combinations for Readability, Signal Strenght and
Tone. We "need" something that anyway is excess information. Everyone means
599 and sends this message one way or another. When a message is identical
from anyone, it is useless and should be considered to be omitted.
You claim that the word TEST is wasting your time, your rhythm and you
understanding. Yes, I agree, and that is why I move the word to the start
TEST de RM2D RM2D This message is not excessive, as it shows I
participate in the TEST and not just run common contacts CQ de RM2D RM2D.
That is why we should keep the TEST word in the CQ message, and preferably
at the beginning so it does not confuce.
So then back to the beginning...
Why do you "like" ENN, SNN, 5NN or 599? Because there is a meaning or
purpose, or simply because YOU "like it" (but necessatily WE like it"`?
With the hand on the heart Sam, your rhetoric betrays your intention. Or
do you "like it" because it is a habit for you? Or simply because it indeed
is a bad habit - and with useless information that does not add value to
the contest?
As said, some people see the different forms of 599 as an "alert signal",
to get ready to copy the important information. I think this argument is
not very good. My alert signal is my own call sign. If I hear my own call
sign, I know for sure, I should pay more attention and get ready for the
important part of the message (serial number, zone, age, State, licence
year, QRA etc).
I see no value in listening to ENN, SNN, 5NN and 599 before the real stuff
appears.
RM2D 001 (with some extra clarifying space between the last D of my call
and the serial number, is all I need.
Why should we change? Because removing the useless additional identical
figures, will speed up RATE, This rate is an indicator of how skilled an
operator is. By increasing the rate, we make contest more competitive, and
we are able to define who is even a better operator.
Does it make sense?
I still maintain my opinion that the contest organizers ready to skip ENN,
SNN, 5NN or 599, are the modern ones looking for development instead of old
fashioned views....
73 de RM2D, Mats
2015-07-30 23:21 GMT+03:00 Saulius Zalnerauskas <ly5w.sam@gmail.com>:
> No no no,
> I like it, we need this.
> But in which form?
> ENN, SNN, 5NN, 599?
> Here is a question.
> Last IARU contest I liked SNN, some very smart contester did it.
> I will do this in EUHFC and WAEDC.
>
> Also about CQ TEST calling.
> I hate (HATE) those callers who are using CQ TEST YA0YA YA0YA TEST
> I am loosing time, after CALL almost all giving back answering. But guy
> still continue with this STUPID "TEST" on the end.....
> And gets only my "5W", not full call.
>
> On my favorite Team (LY2W) we almost every tiem use - CQ LY2W LY2W
> or another my Team (II9P) - we use TEST II9P II9P
>
> It is only few seconds to remove this in CW Messages, why not doing?
>
> Last weekend here in Lithuania was LY Hamfest. And we did as usual Morse
> Runner competition.
> And again this "TEST" on the end.
>
> How about specially invalid exchange?
> One old contester from Lithuania every time sending HNNAH, but not 5NN A5
> in CQWW.
> Other very known HAM from Slovenia sending THT, not TEST.... but all
> peolpe know this :)
>
> Still no idea about "TU" or "EE" on the end of QSO.
> I like both reports, but there are sometimes problems with "EE".
>
> 73, Sam LY5W (five is not 9)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not remove a useless ENN, 5NN or 599 at all? RAEM contest has already
>> realized this, adding a relatively complicated long/lat message instead.
>>
>> I do not "buy" the argument that 5NN is a "get ready" message....
>>
>> Remove RS(T) at all from test messages. Useless addition that gives no
>> value.
>>
>> Time to think "out of the box" and focus on what is important - and what
>> is
>> not...
>>
>> My 2 cents ...
>>
>> 73 de RM2D Mats
>>
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2015, Mark van Wijk, PA5MW <pa5mw@home.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > Oh yes there is: the '5' is currently replaced by 'E' where the RST
>> > exchange becomes effectively "ENN"
>> >
>> > I believe this is pushing it beyond the reasonable and I will not use
>> it.
>> > Next the copiable 5NN is commonly easy recognized as the short version
>> of
>> > 599.
>> > Stations sending ENN on weak signal level will create unclear message
>> > transmissions as the single 'E' offers less momentum.
>> > It is several big guns using ENN now instead of 5NN
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 73 Mark, PA5MW
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message----- From: n1ix@n1ix.com
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:27 PM
>> > To: 'Jukka Klemola'
>> > Cc: 'Cq-Contest'
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why send 5nn ?
>> >
>> > I don’t think there is a cut number for 5. Otherwise, I’m sure it would
>> be
>> > used.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a friend who’s name is ANN she really has a difficult time being
>> > understood
>> >
>> > in contests where she has to send her name and RST.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dave N1IX
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Jukka Klemola [mailto:jpklemola@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:21 AM
>> > To: n1ix@n1ix.com
>> > Cc: Cq-Contest
>> > Subject: Re: Why send 5nn ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Why people send abbreviated 9 but 5 is not abbreviated?
>> >
>> > I am not Vulcan, but there is no logic.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > Jukka OH6LI
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-07-30 3:06 GMT+03:00 <n1ix@n1ix.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> > I had 9 stations copy my QTH as NS not NH.
>> > I would think that DX stations would know that N1IX 5NN NS is
>> impossible!!
>> >
>> > ...
>> > Dave N1IX
>> >
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|