RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Repeats: State vs Province vs QTH ...

To: k4adr@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Repeats: State vs Province vs QTH ...
From: William Smith <bill.n3xl@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:29:17 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
k4adr,
 I think that a missing 599 is an example of what happens when people get 
carried away with trying to use every trick in the book to achieve brevity, 
then 
end up with bad operating practices. After all we do call these events 
contests, 
which really is a misnomer for 99% of the operators..
In my naval tactical RT training I learned that certain specific things can be 
left out of routine communication and it will still be understood. In fact, to 
achieve the utmost brevity it is considered good operating practice to leave 
out 
certain things that are understood. BTW, an example of this is leaving out the 
DE between the called station and the calling station, although it is correct 
to 
use it if you want to.. 

I think some untrained operators pick up on the fact that some things can be 
left out and that the communication can still be understood. They just don't 
realize that there is a format to exchange message that requires certain fields 
to be filled in. Case in point, an RST is a required field in some contest 
exchanges and a message without it is incomplete. This is a training issue and 
I 
don't think you should try to hammer those overzealous operators since you 
understood their mistake. Maybe you should send a message saying "RST REQD NO 
QSL" or, even better, note their call sign and send them an email.  Do the 
rules 
specifically say you can't qsl an improperly formatted exchange? If so, you are 
dead on, and we should all implement that practice, which would be a sure way 
to 
cure the problem. Imagine logging 2000 QSOs and receiving no QSLs.hi hi

73,
Bill N3XL



----- Original Message ----
From: "k4adr@comcast.net" <k4adr@comcast.net>
To: WS7I <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com>
Cc: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net>; RTTY contest 
group <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 11:46:08 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Repeats: State vs Province vs QTH ...

Why send 599 , there one station on Saturday who didnt send 599 , only his call 
and state, but on Sunday he added the 599 as per the rules.  I did not log my 
contact with him because it was not a full exchange, what did the rest of you 
do 
with that exchange, count it or delete it? Plus he  has posted his score with 
big numbers! Score of over 200,000 points! I asked him for my report 2 or 3 
times and he never answer me. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WS7I" <ws7ik7tj@gmail.com> 
To: "Hank Garretson" <w6sx@arrl.net> 
Cc: "Peter Laws" <plaws@plaws.net>, "RTTY contest group" <rtty@contesting.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:13:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Repeats: State vs Province vs QTH ... 

Bingo, Hank. 

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net> wrote: 

> Come on everybody.  You can be sure he isn't asking for RST repeat.  Just 
> as 
> there is no reason to send 599 more than once in an exchange, there is no 
> reason to send 599 when asked for a repeat of any kind. 
> 
> 73, 
> 
> Hank, W6SX 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net> wrote: 
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 17:05, Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > > Me too, but I just use AGN AGN. I don't see the need to make it into 
> > > a question and nobody has ever misunderstood AFAIK. 
> > 
> > 
> > If I need to know the other guy's state and I send "AGN AGN", I'll get 
> > his whole exchange.  I don't need his whole exchange, I need his state 
> > (or name or time or whatever is appropriate for the contest at hand). 
> > EXCH? might be a good generic but that's even more chars. 
> > 
> > If I need it ALL again, I send "AGN AGN". 
> > 
> > Works the other way around, too.  If I get "ST?" or "QTH?" I send my 
> > state 5 times.  If I get "AGN AGN" I send it all again. 
> > 
> > Wastes time and effort otherwise. 
> > 
> _______________________________________________ 
> RTTY mailing list 
> RTTY@contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty 
> 
_______________________________________________ 
RTTY mailing list 
RTTY@contesting.com 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty 
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>