[CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

"My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange
when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation
process?"

Why not?

The exchange is the exchange.  It specifies that certain information be
provided in a certain order.


Yes, the call in the exchange is redundant since you should know the call of
the station you just, er, called.  So?  Consider it the equivalent of a
CRC -- a redundant check to make sure you DID copy the call correctly.

Personally, I say:  Them's the rules.  Deviate at your own risk.

73

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:21 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kutzko, Sean, KX9X" <kx9x at arrl.org>
.
.

> .. your own call MUST be a part of the standard exchange of
> information along with the other station's call, QSO number,
> Precedence, Check and Section.

As a programmer, I try to avoid inconsistency, redundancy
or repetition :-)

My question is - why MUST the call be part of the exchange
when it's already "exchanged" as part of the QSO initiation
process?  The second call exchange serves little or no useful
purpose - it is effectively a handicap imposed on all QSOs.

Of course, exchanging the call twice may help to reduce
logging errors.  This would apply equally to the QSO Number,
Precedence, Check and Section - but there is no requirement
to repeat those.

If "own call" is indeed an essential part of the standard
exchange of information, why then is it omitted from the
exchange fields in the Cabrillo specification for SS QSOs?

Perhaps I just don't understand?  :-)

73,
Paul EI5DI?

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest