[CQ-Contest] cut #
k7qq at netzero.net
Fri Jun 1 08:43:38 EDT 2007
When I get a really weak one calling I give the standard 5NN # etc. Then
maybe before if I have difficulty copying I'll give 449 or 559 then a HI
HI and the 5NN #.
I was contesting in the Late 60's and early 70's as KA2RM from JA and 70's
from W7RM and I think we mostly gave the 5NN because it was quicker. ?? I
can rembember marking the old 40 Q log sheets after the contest with 599
post contest with just a Long mark from the Top to bottom of the page.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Harrison" <k0xp at dandy.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cut #
At 05:07 PM 5/31/2007 -0500, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
>Paul - VO1HE in part wrote:
>"One way to get rid of many cut numbers would be to eliminate the totally
>useless RST in contest exchanges. Make the exchange something worth
>- - - - - - - - - - -
>We only have ourselves to blame for turning the RST into a synch pulse
>instead of anything useful. I have been going over my old contest logs
>from the '60s and '70s and find the RST reports were "honest" reports,
>not an endless column of 599's.
>73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
That's what I recall, too; it was uncommon (a bit more often than rare, in
other words) to run across someone sending ONLY 599. But by 1970, that had
begun to change as the top layer strove for faster and faster QSOs and thus
It'd be interesting to hear what Fred, K3ZO recalls about RST in contests
from those days.
>From time to time, when I think the info might actually be of use to
someone (such as someone calling who signed /QRP), I do give an "honest"
RST in contests ;o| But it's a struggle to modify the report in a
computer log without fudging it all up ;o(((((
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 6/1/2007
More information about the CQ-Contest