[RTTY] My Macro Opinion

[W4LA at aol.com]

I'm with you Susan. 
 
 
In a message dated 1/10/2011 9:53:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
susan.k5du at gmail.com writes:

I think  all you guys are thinking backwards. You spend too much  time
criticizing
other folks' contest macros and responses.

I was  very careful to create and use crisp, no wasted shifts macros.

CQ RU  K5DU K5DU CQ
and
YourCall 599 TX TX

Many of the stations in my  log used similar crisp clean clear macros. But,
and it is a
major but,  some hams sent really good alternative responses.

TU HNY 599 VT  VERMONT
and
599 599 599 IN INDIANA
and
599 – IL – IL 599 – IL  QSL?
and
HI SUSAN 599 599 CA CA
and
599 CA 094 599 CA  094

and many GL and 73 and even one 88.

What's good about these  responses? These hams answered my CQ. They got on
the air and gave me
a  point. Sure each one might have cost me a millisecond more, but my  score
would have
been much lower without them.

If I erased all  the QSOs not acceptable to the macro purists, I would have 
a
much  shorter
log. I appreciate everyone who gave me a QSO, no matter how long it  took.

I never did stop to wonder whether QRZ? or CQ? was correct. I  would answer
either one.

73, Susan  K5DU
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing  list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty