On Nov 15, 2008, at 4:07 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
>
>> Personally, I say: Them's the rules. Deviate at your own risk.
>
> Agreed. I'm just making the point that, whatever the
> original rationale, sending the call twice is unnecessary
> repetition. If the rules said you had to send the call
> three times, what would you do? I might start to question
> the rules.
>
> If sending the callsign once is good, and sending it
> twice is better, you should get extra points for sending
> it three or more times :-)
If an Op sends me his callsign during the initial contact, I already
have it, and agree it is not necessary to send it again. That isn't
all that much different from asking someone to send part of their
exchange that you didn't copy the first time they sent it. I'm not
going to expect a person to send me their entire exchange in the
correct order every time when all I need is one small part of it
repeated.
No need to get so rigid.
Now on the other hand, it seems that the requirement of a callsign as
part of the exchange in itself is kind of - well, goofy. You have to
have the correct call in the log in the first place, so does anyone
expect a different callsign during the exchange?
But then, I'm one of those odd folk that thinks the exchange should
mean something, not a endless repeating 599, or the something you
already have anyway. Gimme a serial number any day. Every exchange is
unique, no one else has the same exchange.
Which is to say, has any one ever had a call busted because s/he had a
"wrong" 599 or a exchange callsign that wasn't the log callsign? 8^)
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|