[CQ-Contest] 599

Dale Putnam daleputnam at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 22 05:06:49 PDT 2010

Many times I am tempted to answer with my exchange at the same rate that the other station sends his "faster to save time" 5NN.... however, that is also counterproductive. However, many times, the Q is not asked for the needed repeat either. If it isn't worthwhile sending the information so the rxing station can be expected to receive it without undue stress, the information isn't likely worth sending in the first place. 

So, drop the "faster to save time" 5nn, and don't bother working any weaker stations that might have a problem copying..... ok..


That will leave a whole lot more weaker stations for those that are willing to be both courteous and quality operators that use every tool available to effeciently and effectively exchange information at the most expeditious speed. Also leaves more stations for a better Q count for others. 

--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:35:14 -0400
> From: n4zr at contesting.com
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 599
> This is exactly why I argue against people saving milliseconds by 
> speeding up the sending of "5NN" on CW - in tough conditions it negates 
> the value of setting up your brain for the real data to come.
> 73, Pete N4ZR
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list