Re: [RTTY] Re: Contest Happenings??

["Ian White, G3SEK" <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk>]

Shelby Summerville wrote:
> I said: "Personally, I fail to see any reason to acknowledge the "other
> station's"
> report:", and what I meant was "there is no reason to acknowledge the other
> station's ACTUAL exchange"!!!

Still a slight confusion here. Most people understand "acknowledge" to 
mean a simple confirmation of receipt by sending nothing more than "R", 
"QSL" or "TU".

As I'm understanding you now, you're saying there is no need to repeat 
back what the other station sent to you - and I'd agree 100% with that.

> I don't need to know that you copied my serial
> number correctly, that is your responsibility!

Agreed again. It's a two-way contract between two operators who trust 
each other's judgement. I trust you to log my info correctly... and 
until you are completely satisfied, I trust you to keep asking for 
repeats and *not* send an ack. Therefore I will hang in with the QSO 
until I *do* receive an ack, and will NEVER log a QSO without it.

At least, that's my experience after 20 years of moonbounce QSOs, most 
of them at very weak signal levels where you have to be *completely* 
clear about what a QSO is - or is not.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty