[UK-CONTEST] cut numbers

[John MacLean MMOCCC]

Though I might not be so brutal and cut the QSO short, given the same
circumstances, I have to say when S&P and finding some of the more obscure
cut numbers, I tend to just move to the next station up or down the band
from which I can fully understand the exchange being given out.  As part of
a multi-op entry I might persevere, given that we'd be keen on the extra
points, but as a casual op at home, I'd just find the next station to work.
A bit like someone running at 50+wpm, where I'd need to listen to several
overs to fully confirm call/zone.

What these ops need to consider is how many casual ops are tuning past them,
chance upon their transmission, and find something non-standard (not cut
1,9, or 0) being sent.  Are they going to bother working them and asking for
clarification of the cut number?  I'd reckon the majority answer is no.  Add
in repeat times for those that do bother to work them and the whole idea
seems pointless.

I still like when stations speed up the 5NN "marker" mind you ;-)   Cue
howls of derision from the purists!

73 (GV)
John MM0CCC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of David, G3YYD
> Sent: 02 June 2009 21:22
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] cut numbers
>
>
> Clive
>
> May be but in contesting it is about making QSOs easier not more
> difficult for the receiving operator and one repeat is enough I am not
> going to waste time on some one who does not want to communicate easily
> and clearly with me. I would rather move on and spend the effort working
> another. The simplest way to do this is to send TU and move on as then
> he won't call me at another time and I will remember not to call him.
> Hard may be but effective. So if anyone does use cut numbers other than
> A,N & T, I suggest when asked for a repeat you send the numbers in full.
>
> David G3YYD
>
>
> Clive Whelan wrote:
> > David
> >
> > We are all agreed that excessive use of cur numbers is undesirable, but
> > two wrongs don't make a right. By sending TU 73, you are leading the
> > other station to believe that you have copied their exchange
> and the QSO
> > is therefore in your log; that is unreasonable behaviour. The correct
> > response would be Sri, Nil or QRU SK which they would deserve but the
> > Spanish inquisition is OTT ( nobody expects the Spanish
> inquisition ;-) ).
> >
> > 73
> >
> >
> > Clive
> > GW3NJW
> >
> > David, G3YYD wrote:
> >
> >> I copy the T, N & A cut numbers no problem. As for the other cut
> >> variations I just cannot be bothered to work them out. I will
> ask for a
> >> repeat if still more gibberish I will send TU 73 and with no log entry
> >> their loss at adjudication. For those who use fancy cut numbers think
> >> how little you gain compared to huge loss on getting one request for a
> >> repeat.
> >>
> >> David G3YYD
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> UK-Contest mailing list
> >> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > UK-Contest mailing list
> > UK-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest