[CQ-Contest] DUMB CUT NUMBER

[Paul J. Piercey]

So, ignore it and it will go away.

You're right, that is simple.


73 -- Paul VO1HE  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Taylor [mailto:ve4xt at mts.net] 
> Sent: February 19, 2008 14:12
> To: vo1he at rac.ca; 'Tom Osborne'; 'CQ-Contest'
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] DUMB CUT NUMBER
> 
> The solutions to both the "check" and cut number 
> pseudo-controversies are simple.
> 
> Use Darwinism to solve the cut number problem: if you don't 
> understand a poor choice in cut numbers and cannot get a 
> clarification in a reasonable amount of time, hit escape, 
> send NIL NIL and move on to the next guy. If you have CT, or 
> a logger with a similar "mults worth" calculation, use that 
> to determine how much time you're willing to waste on the 
> guy. When he realizes months later how many Qs he lost, 
> perhaps he'll put the lost Qs and his bad choices in cut 
> numbers together and smarten up. Or maybe he won't. But 
> either way, he's not winning. As long as we keep rewarding 
> these lids by trying too hard to get them in our logs, the 
> more emboldened they'll be to continue, nay, even increase, 
> their use of dumb cut numbers.
> 
> On the other hand, if those who know what he's sending vastly 
> outnumber those who don't, then who (forgive the expression) 
> is the real dummy?
> 
> As for the "check" pseudo-controversy, just don't worry about 
> it. Log the check the guy sends you, send the check you wish. 
> On Monday, kiss your spouse good morning and let the world 
> continue on its merry way. Indeed, it is probably a BETTER 
> test of your operating skill if the check isn't some static 
> number you can populate your database with. The check exists 
> ONLY to give you something to copy that will change from 
> station to station beyond serial number and precedence. (I 
> can't believe that ugly non-issue has
> resurfaced.)
> 
> In either case, the world will not be sent crashing into the 
> sun because someone doesn't operate the way you think they should. 
> 
> The cut number thing really comes down to operator 
> intelligence, or lack thereof. And you can't legislate intelligence. 
> 
> Once again, clear proof we need some sunspots.
> 
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
>