AA5VU wrote:
> Soapbox: Hopefully, the stations calling CQ will use call signs
> for reports. It may save the CQ station some time but really
> confuses the S&P stations when the CQ send a report without
> a call sign.
>
> It's like saying I will QSL the first and loudest station responding
> with a QSL. Several stations have been using this practice and
> it just causes QRM due to requests for repeats. I may be alone
> but I consider this as a rude operating practice.
I believe someone doing this is probably a contest newbie - or at least,
they are certainly acting like one.
Newbies often act as if they were unaware that there is often more than
one station responding to a CQ, and they might conclude based on such an
erroneous assumption that sending the responding station's call sign is
an unnecessary waste of time.
I believe the people who do this are using similar logic to that used by
the people who send their exchange together with the call sign in
response to a CQ. In this latter case they don't actually save anything
(exactly the same information must be exchanged, it's just the order
that changes), and when there is more than one caller they make things
worse. However, the people who conclude for themselves that this is a
good idea seldom if ever stop to think that they aren't the only person
responding to the CQer, and that maybe he might want to reply to someone
else first.
Similarly, a CQer who omits the responder's call sign when he sends the
exchange simply hasn't stopped to think that maybe there is more than
one person who responded and who might legitimately have reason to
wonder whether they are the one being replied to.
73,
Rich VE3KI
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|