Topband: ARRL 160

[Tom Haavisto]

CQ supports the idea of an "X" QSO.  Proper use is "X-QSO"  You prepend
"X-" to leave the QSO in the log so the other guy does not get a NIL, and
you don't claim it as a valid QSO.

That said, I am not sure if the ARRL log processing software is equipped to
handle this scenario.

Another option would be to bust the other guys call (on purpose) in your
log.  You take an extra "hit" - you loose the QSO, plus penalty, but it
gets the job done if that is the intent.

Tom - VE3CX


On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:55 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:

> If you remove the line completely the other guy gets a busted QSO!  You
> put an X in front of the line.  Not sure about the exact formatting.
>
>
>
> On 12/5/2016 12:25 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
>
>> If the web upload app for log submission finds something in a QSO: line
>> it can't deal with...
>>
>> > The ARRL submission AP tells you to correct the mistakes rather than
>> remove or unclaim them and that is NOT RIGHT!
>>
>> Point of clarification - the app does not really know anything about a
>> particular call.  It just knows that the data it found in what it thought
>> was a call sign field did not look like a call sign.  (You would get a
>> similar error if the Sent Call data is bad or the RST isn't an RST.)  It is
>> up to the log submitter as to what to do about that.  If the QSO: line is
>> just mis-formatted, rearranging the information to satisfy the Cabrillo
>> format is perfectly OK.  If the call sign is busted (from typo, mis-copy,
>> or whatever), my suggestion would be to remove the line entirely. Same
>> thing if the the section abbreviation is not valid.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>