I saw one kind intentioned individual asking for a resend of the RST - I guess
the SEC was copied OK.
Now most guys I am guessing would use human assistance to get the
interpretation. But I guess this gentlemen wanted to see a 599
printed in the clear. Which is all good.
The funny part was that the other station did not understanding the RST was the
problem - and kept repeating the SEC. Request for
RST. Replied with SEC. over and over.
I guess at hour 23 you get pretty desperate for entertainment. :)
73, Jeff ACØC
www.ac0c.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ktfrog007@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:13 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] 559 instead of 599
Hi,
Do you think it's possible these stations just made a typo in their
macros? Typing 559 by accident instead of 599.
I don't know all the ways of generating macros. I use MMTTY by itself and
when setting up my macros I often put 599 directly in them (rather than
using %r) plus whatever the exchange is for the contest. I can see myself
fumble-fingering my way to 559 and not noticing it.
73,
Kermit (aka Ken) AB1J
In a message dated 1/11/2011 9:46:50 P.M. GMT Standard Time, k4gmh@arrl.net
writes:
Hello Shelby,
You are right, I believe we missed each other in this Contest.
Regarding the "599", I received "559" a couple of times. Logged the
received RST as 559. Wondering if the log he(they) sends in will list the
sent RST as 559? The RST was definitely 559 as made sure the signal was
solid copy before making the change to the log. Will be interesting to
find
out what the log checking program has to say regarding the unusual RST
value.
Hope you and your family have a healthy and prosperous 2011, Shelby.
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|