[CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics
n2ic at arrl.net
Wed Aug 3 13:51:29 EDT 2005
Let's take this scenerio a half-step farther....
NN2I1CIK (2 stations, very similar calls answer)
IK 5NN A5
N1IKN2IC5NN5NN45 (2 stations, N2IC and N1IK respond, both give exchanges)
You haven't clearly made a QSO with either N1IK or N2IC !
I can foresee your response - you're going to say that if you think there is any
question as to who you were working, you would have confirmed the QSO by signing
"N1IK TU". But what if N2IC was 20 dB weaker than N1IK (a not uncommon
occurance !) ? You would have simply ignored the weak "background" signal of
N2IC and sent "TU", leaving N2IC and N1IK thinking they have both worked you.
IMHO, not signing the corrected, complete call of the station you were working
is another example of poor, high-rate operating, done at the expense of those
who work you.
Tonno Vahk wrote:
> I don't quite agree that you should always demand for you call repetition.
> For example:
> TEST ES5TV
> IK 5NN A5
> N1IK 5NN 5
> In that case I clearly say that I have got your call and I am sure abt it.
> Why would you question me? It is exactly the same way I trust you when you
> answer my CQ and do not say my call, I trust you have got it correct. I do
> not demand you to repeat my call, do I?
> Actually I find it more beneficial in SSB not repeating the full calls all
> the time when I am 100% sure, especially with 6 digit EU calls and they very
> rarely ask for confirmation.
More information about the CQ-Contest