To dupe or not to dupe..

Scott Ellington sdelling at
Thu Nov 7 15:31:25 EST 1996

Except in a contest with a long exchange, like SS, it's almost
always faster just to work him again.  You mark the dupe, claim
zero points, and the log checkers will probably give you the
contact/mult if the first one isn't in the other log.

Scott  K9MA
sdelling at

>From psoper at (Pete Soper)  Thu Nov  7 21:46:51 1996
From: psoper at (Pete Soper) (Pete Soper)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:46:51 EST
Subject: To dupe or not to dupe..
Message-ID: <23038.9611072146 at>

Hello Martin,

I agree with all that you've written. If I get a dupe I
just log it and say "thanks again" and I trust that they'll
hear "again" and realize I considered them a dupe but only
a fraction of a second was used (i.e. I've got a full minute
of CQ'ing before my next QSO instead of 60.5 seconds <g>).

If I get a "You're a dupe Old Man" and he's not in my log it's 
a major hassle to get back in a second time to communicate
the mistake. My hope is that log checking may eventually get smart 
enough to handle this case properly if the DX just logs me as 
a dupe and we get on with it. 


>From kr2j at (Robert E. Naumann)  Thu Nov  7 21:36:15 1996
From: kr2j at (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:36:15 -0600
Subject: All the new-fnagled contest calls
Message-ID: <01BBCCC3.022E5320 at>

For me, in a big pileup, it's simply a matter of whose call I can copy. 
 It's not whose call I can decode and then make a decision as to whether or 
not they are a contester or not.

Knowing a call can help, for example: from V26B, during a 300+ hour into 
the U.S., I only heard " Fox Oscar Xray " (or whatever the phonetics were) 
I went back to KA9FOX and it was in fact Scott.  I actually took a chance 
that it was him and it shortened the time to complete that QSO. 
 Familiarity with his call helped here.  Scott happens to be an excellent 
operator, but my knowledge of his skill didn't contribute to my decision to 
work him first.   Through the din of the pileup I recognized a portion of 
his call and took a chance that paid off.  Of course, his skill may have 
allowed him to get his call in at the right time, but again that's not part 
of my selection process.

I'm not an expert (but I play one on TV) but I believe that this has more 
to do with your brain recognizing familiar patterns than making conscious 
decisions about the calling operator's skill.


From:  David Clemons[SMTP:dave at]
Sent:  Thursday, November 07, 1996 9:52 AM
To:  cq-contest at TGV.COM
Subject:  All the new-fnagled contest calls

.... If I guess correctly, it is partially determined by your
ability to recognize one or more of those calls as belonging to an
experienced contester. <<

>From 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob)  Thu Nov  7 22:03:05 1996
From: 71111.260 at CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Date: 07 Nov 96 17:03:05 EST
Subject: All the new-fnagled contest calls
Message-ID: <961107220305_71111.260_EHM54-1 at CompuServe.COM>

Dave Clemons K1VUT (still) said:

>>p.s. I predict a slight advantage in DX Contests during the next couple 
>>     of years for those well known operators who did not change their calls.

I hope Dave is right!

73, de Hans, K0HB (still also over-over)

>From k0wa at (Lee Buller)  Thu Nov  7 22:09:49 1996
From: k0wa at (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:09:49 -0600
Subject: New Calls/Incentive License
Message-ID: < at>

It just dawned on me.....

I think it was November 4 1968 when Incentive Licensing hit Ham Radio.

And to think....

All of these calls on the same day.

WMMMMMM.  I wonder.  Does anone remember when  IL started exactly.

k0wa at

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list