if you , like me, paper log
you would like the call stuck in the middle of the exchange
mike w7dra
Paper Logging forever
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:47:39 +0000 Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> writes:
> On 09/11/2011 16:24, Ward Silver wrote:
>
> > No, the sensible response is, "OK" and then do it. That's what
> the contest
> > rules require and have required for nearly 80 years.
>
> This is the perennial circular argument in support of
> the "do nothing" option. The rules are what they are,
> and you must do it because it's in the rules ....
>
>
> > I am also forbidden to touch my golf club to the sand whilst
> getting out of
> > a trap (which if you ever saw me attempt a round of golf would be
> a frequent
> > occurrence) and that, too, is a bit of an oddity.
>
> And no mention of the many golf rules that have changed
> in the last 80 years? They change frequently - here are
> some recent ones.
>
> http://golf.about.com/od/rulesofgolf/a/golf-rules-changes-2012.htm
>
>
> > Yes, things can change and it's OK to occasionally ask
> > why rules are what they are.
>
> Thanks, I'm asking :-) For what it's worth, there
> were rule changes in SS as recently as 1999 and 2003.
> Entrants no longer have to exchange 10-word messages
> as they did in the 1930s. The exchange was again
> shortened in 1971, to omit QSO time and birthday.
> The SS exchange is not carved in tablets of stone.
>
> http://www.qsl.net/nu0q/sshist.htm
>
>
> > If there is a good reason for the rule (in
> > this case, to emulate the format of a radiogram message - which
> are still in
> > use, by the way)
>
> That is understood. The issue is why is it
> necessary to emulate the radiogram format in SS,
> when the callsign of the "Station of Origin" is
> known in advance of hearing the exchange? Please
> be specific - and without saying "because that's
> the way it's been for 80 years" or "because it's
> in the rules".
>
> The Cabrillo authors knew exactly what they were
> doing 12 years ago, when they scrapped provision
> for the "Station of Origin" field in SS QSO records.
>
>
> > Actually, changing a rule that has been in place since the 1930's
> would
> > cause a whole lot more grief because that would be even more
> unexpected than
> > the call sign being present.
>
> How could it possibly cause grief, apart from
> the fact that some people would continue to
> repeat their callsign? Most contesters can
> deal with that. Best of all, there would be no
> change to Cabrillo, no change to the SS robot,
> and no change to software used to cross-check
> SS logs.
>
>
> > SS is not broken, let's not fix it - at least in this particular
> way.
>
> No one, least of all me, has suggested it is
> broken. Sometimes, in this forum, there
> seems to be a tendency to exaggerate a little.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|