CT exchange msg

[Martin Ellis]

Good morning from New Zealand.

I am using CT v7.15 and am making preparations for the 
ARRL 10m contest December 14-15.

I have a problem in setting up for CW from the *DX side*.

The contest exchange for the North American side is 599 STATE.
But from the DX side the exchange is 599 serial no. (same as in WPX).

Is there any message string which I can set using Shift-F2,
so that the correct exchange message including the QSO# is sent
when F2 is pressed? 

Thanks for any advice,

Martin ZL1ANJ    < jmellis at ihug.co.nz >
(hoping for some band openings on 10M)

>From AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C)  Sat Dec  7 23:31:36 1996
From: AD1C at tiac.net (Jim Reisert AD1C) (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 96 19:31:36 -0400
Subject: Ooooppps, no mult!
Message-ID: <199612080032.TAA03106 at mailnfs0.tiac.net>

From: 	Jim Reisert AD1C[SMTP:AD1C at tiac.net]
Sent: 	Wednesday, December 04, 1996 6:17 PM
To: 	k5zd at ULTRANET.COM; Nzharps at aol.com
Cc: 	K8AZ at aol.com
Subject: 	Re: Ooooppps, no mult!

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:55:13 -0500, Nzharps at aol.com wrote:

>Randy..I must apologize for the loss of your mult.  I was the operator and
>was CQing with the intent of  finding mults.  Upon hearing your call, it was
>a knee jerk (emphasis on the JERK) reaction to work you.  As soon as we
>finished the Q, I realized that it was not a mult for us and hit F11(again,
>not a smart move).  I'm very sorry that it happened at your expense. 
>
>   This whole issue of M/S in CQWW, must be addressed.  I don't think that a
>M/S station by any definition should be allowed to CQ on a band other than
>the "run" band.  However, the way the rules are written at present does
>encourage this type of operation.  It is an unfortunate fact of life.  

Ron, in your case it was OK to log the QSO, and type CTRL-L to make it a
non-counter.  It needs to be left in your log, however, so that the person
working you can get credit for the QSO (which could have been a new mult).

73 - Jim AD1C

--
Jim Reisert <AD1C at tiac.net>                    http://www.tiac.net/users/ad1c/



>From pnesbit at melbpc.org.au (Peter Nesbit VK3APN)  Sun Dec  8 00:49:09 1996
From: pnesbit at melbpc.org.au (Peter Nesbit VK3APN) (Peter Nesbit VK3APN)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 10:49:09 +1000
Subject: Single Band Rules
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961208190125.30ef7212 at popa.melbpc.org.au>

At 08:24 PM 5/12/96 -0600, John Brosnahan (broz at csn.net) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>....according to the thread recently, this passing of mults from another
>band is perfectly legal as described in Bob Cox's book.  But I am really 
>offended by the idea--passing mults from another band--even from/to oneself 
>is not much different than packet.  You are being assisted--if only by better 
>propagation on another band, a band that you are not competing on.
>
>I think a single band effort should be just what it says ----- a single band
>effort! Not some hybrid of interpretation, you can do this but you can't do
that.
>(ie its ok to move mults from other HF bands but not from VHF bands -- packet)
>
>Anything more is crap----put this way because I am at a loss for words to
describe
>what I really think!
>
>I would appreciate hearing from anyone else, either directly or on the
>reflector, that feels that single band entries should be limited to
operation on that
>single band.  I also am not very comfortable with the interpretation of moving
>mults from one mode to another and would like to hear what others think
about this
>practice as well (both single band and all band).
>
>73  John  


................ I agree. Personally I would love to compete aggressively in
the multiband categories of contests, but site limitations mean I am usually
confined to a single band. However, at least I can optimise my antenna for
that band, and can usually do well as a result. I'm sure this is a common
scenario, and always thought that the single band categories were created
for those of us in this type of situation.

However to pit us directly against those with more real estate and big
multiband antennas is just not fair! For me, single band is not a matter of
choice, but necessity.

I sometimes think that the organisers of the big contests get so wrapped up
in legal technalities and large scale contesting that they lose sight of the
realities of life for the "smaller guys", whose efforts provide the bulk of
contacts for everyone else.

On the other hand I don't have any great problem with moving stations from
phone to CW, or vice versa. These days most stations have access to both
modes, at least those who are likely to be putting in competitive logs, and
who would therefore be most affected by this issue. Also, don't forget that
many contests have phone and CW running concurrently, so the issue gets a
bit cloudy. In a slow contest I will often change modes to pep things up (as
do many of my friends), even though I will only submit a single mode log.
Having another mode is a very different thing to having another antenna,
which can be affected by things outside the entrant's control.

73,
Peter VK3APN

(Prepared 2350z Friday 6 December)


>From pnesbit at melbpc.org.au (Peter Nesbit VK3APN)  Sun Dec  8 00:49:41 1996
From: pnesbit at melbpc.org.au (Peter Nesbit VK3APN) (Peter Nesbit VK3APN)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 10:49:41 +1000
Subject: Remote Controlled Stations
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961208190157.30ef6666 at popa.melbpc.org.au>

Several days ago, a there was a thread about remote controlled stations,
started (I think) by a GM4. Unfortunately my email program scrubbed the
messages before I could save them (my fault - I hadn't set the options
correctly).

Could someone please forward copies of the relevant messages directly to me?

I tried to access the archive using ftp, but couldn't find a way in. Also,
unlike the ct-user reflector, we don't appear to have "index" or "get"
commands (hint to N5KO!)

73,
Peter VK3APN

(Prepared 0029z Saturday 7 December 1996)