[RTTY] Re: Contest Happenings??
Ian White, G3SEK
G3SEK at ifwtech.co.uk
Wed Jan 26 00:51:42 EST 2005
Shelby Summerville wrote:
>I said: "Personally, I fail to see any reason to acknowledge the "other
>station's"
>report:", and what I meant was "there is no reason to acknowledge the other
>station's ACTUAL exchange"!!!
Still a slight confusion here. Most people understand "acknowledge" to
mean a simple confirmation of receipt by sending nothing more than "R",
"QSL" or "TU".
As I'm understanding you now, you're saying there is no need to repeat
back what the other station sent to you - and I'd agree 100% with that.
>I don't need to know that you copied my serial
>number correctly, that is your responsibility!
Agreed again. It's a two-way contract between two operators who trust
each other's judgement. I trust you to log my info correctly... and
until you are completely satisfied, I trust you to keep asking for
repeats and *not* send an ack. Therefore I will hang in with the QSO
until I *do* receive an ack, and will NEVER log a QSO without it.
At least, that's my experience after 20 years of moonbounce QSOs, most
of them at very weak signal levels where you have to be *completely*
clear about what a QSO is - or is not.
--
73 from Ian G3SEK
More information about the RTTY
mailing list