Timo OH1NOA said:
> This is not a legitimate QSO. My opinion is that you have to say N1IK's call
> sign at least once, but his call can be said in more than one part. I
> somehow even remember that CQ Contest Committee (or Bob) has commented about
> this years ago.
Indeed, I agree 100%.
Without this confirmation both parties are not sure whether the QSO
was legit. For example, how does N1IK know you got his call correct?
He could well call you again later (thus he'll be a dupe if you got
it correct), but then, depending on your operating practices as to
whether or not you work dupes (I personally always do), you could
send QSO B4, and then he has wasted your time and he's wasted his
own time calling you again.
> TEST ES5TV
> N1IK
> IK 5NN A5
> N1IK 5NN 5
> N1 TU
Just perfect. No need to repeat the full call, just the part you
were missing previously. Indeed, a lot of logging software behaves
in this way (just sending the missing part, rather than the whole
call). It should be de-facto standard, IMO.
Timo is always correct! :-)
Cheers,
--
Simon Pearson M0CLW
WWYC #452 | G6PZ CG
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|