Zack Widup w9sz at prairienet.org
Tue Nov 20 08:15:52 EST 2001

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Leigh S. Jones wrote:

> Alan,
> You and I agree on:
> 1) The way 99.9% of the participants send the exchange
> 2) Probably the way we each sent the exchange this year
> and for at least the past two decades
> You and I probably disagree regarding:
> 1) The clarity of the rules (in my case, especially, the
> clarity and consistency of the rules over a several decade
> period
> 2) Whether or not your interpretation and the way 99.9%
> of the participants send the exchange should be
> considered "enforceable" rulemaking
> Mark, on the otherhand, has now been taken to task by
> one vocal individual on the reflector -- identified by call,
> in fact.  The original post by N7MAL was somewhat
> harsh, in my opinion, considering the nonsense and
> obfuscation in the rules over the years.  It's one thing
> to say that 99.9% of the participants send the exchange
> one way, and another thing to say the rules prohibit any
> disagreement with N7MAL's interpretation.

To be pragmatic:

Interpretations of the rules have led to conventions that make it
preferable to follow the exact order of exchange sent, at least in SS.  I
use CT, and the cursor advances from field to field in a prescribed order
when hitting the space bar, and it really throws me off to have someone
give the data out of sequence (happened quite a few times in phone SS this
year.)  I have to advance through the entire exchange cycle to get back to
where I want to be when logging.

Do other logging programs follow this pattern?

Not a big deal but just one of life's minor annoyances.  :-)

73, Zack W9SZ

CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list