>From the point of view of the caller I agree that "<urcall> 599 <urcall>" and
>"<urcall> tu qrp up de <dxcall>" is good. The most important aspects are
>first: the <urcall> after the 599 in the DX stations initial response, and
>second, making sure the initial response is LONGER than the average calling
>time of the stations calling the DX. This can be accomplished by the double
><urcall> at the end and maybe an extra 599 in the middle. If the DX station's
>initial response is shorter than the average calling station's transmission,
>many callers will frequently not hear the DX station's transmission, and thus
>keep calling and causing QRM while the DX is (trying) to working someone else.
73
Dave, K2YG
>
> From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@panix.com>
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Date: 2003/02/03 Mon PM 05:01:41 CST
> To: w7ti@dslextreme.com
> CC: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Minor chuckle
>
>
>
> So, what do you think of the exchange? I'm partial to the "<yrcall>
> 599 <yrcall>", with a third <yrcall> added if conditions are rough.
> And "<yrcall> TU QRZ VP6?? UP x-y".
>
> Bernie was using "<yrcall> <yrcall> 599 bk", I think.
>
> 73, doug
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
|