Why not just not work guys you don't know the calls for?
Seems to me that it's not the best practice to call anyone without knowing
who they are.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 12/1/11 1:54 AM, "Ken McCormack" <zl1aih@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Edward Sawyer <SawyerEd@earthlink.net>wrote:
> The reason I believe it is acceptable to work them and not log them is
> because if you run out of patience in waiting for them to sign, then you
> honestly don't know what to log. I believe its no different than the
> exchange attempt as follows:
>
> Me: N1UR
> You; N1UR? 599 15
> Me: 599 5
> You: N1UR? CFM?
> Me: N1UR
>
> You (not hearing me): NIL
>
> In this instance example:
> DX: dit dit
> Me: N1UR
> DX N1UR 599 33
> Me: 599 5 CL?
> DX: dit dit
> Me CL?
>
> DX works 4 more stations without signing
>
> Me: NIL
>
> Tell me what's wrong with that.
>
> Ed>
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I'm with you 100% except that I persist until he sends his call.
>
> Example.
>
> Me: ZL1AIH
> Him: ZL1AIH? 59915
> Me: 599 32
> Him: ZL1AIH CFM?
> Me: ZL1AIH 599 32
> Him: TU
> Me: ZL1AIH 599 32
> Him: TU
> Me: ZL1AIH 599 32
>
> until he finally gives his call or else I delete the QSO.
>
> In a contest it is my firm belief that unless *both stations
> identify*during a QSO, then that QSO is
> *invalid.
>
> *I can understand DXpeditioners using 'split' to maximise their rate
> (green stamps?) in order to control pile-ups, but if by not identifying
> every QSO ARRL are willing to accept the practice for DXCC then so be it.
>
> However, in contests unID and 'split' shows lack of sportsmanship,
> incompetence or both.
>
> 73,
> Ken ZL1AIH .
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|