[CQ-Contest] SS CW question

[Neil & Heather]

On 11/8/2010 6:15 PM, Steve London wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 08:54 AM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:11 AM,<KI9A at aol.com>   wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just me, or  more and more stations skipping the callsign part  of
>>> the exchange??  I noticed this a couple years ago, and, this year, I had
>>> maybe 20 or so do this.
>>
>> To me, it seemed that more stations failed to send MY call than failed
>> to send their call embedded in the exchange.
>
> The rules require that the station sending the exchange put their call in the
> exchange. There is no rule that requires the other station's call to be in the
> exchange. Apples and oranges comparison.
>
>> If I send the exchange,
>> and all I hear back is "###<prec>   etc." then I have no idea if they
>> got my call right, if they doubled with me, or are working someone
>> else.
>
> Oh, I bet you have a pretty darn good idea.
>
> This business of sending the other station's call with the exchange is a
> relatively new phenomenon in SS (and other domestic contests, I note). The only
> time I will send the other station's call is if I detect there is
> ambiguity...For example, if two guys are running, very close in frequency, and
> they both respond to my S&P call. Otherwise, sending the other station's call is
> a waste of time for both of us.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3245 - Release Date: 11/08/10
>
>
As a Younger, less experienced contester,
I'm caught in the catch-22 of which is right
and proper.
General consensus is that saving precious
time is more valued that protocol...
after all,it is a contest...
Correct???

73
Neil
AE1P