RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange

To: dezrat1242@yahoo.com, RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange
From: Claude Du Berger <duberger.miousse81@globetrotter.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:43 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
It would be nice if the RUN station reply with the  
TU or QSL  at the beginning of his confirmation, this way the S&P 
station could move faster... not waiting for the new way
to reply giving the callsign twice...

73, 
Claude Du Berger VE2FK
ve2fk@arrl.net
http://www.contestgroupduquebec.com/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill, W6WRT 
  To: RTTY 
  Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange


  I didn't notice this at all. To me, the confirmation is either QSL or
  TU, and I wait for one or the other on every QSO. During the recent
  contest I don't believe I had a single QSO without receiving one or
  the other. Are you (Roger) looking for something more than that?

  And I agree totally about the 599. Complete waste of time on RTTY. In
  a CW or phone contest it does have some value because it sets the
  rhythm and tone for the report which follows, but RTTY has no such
  need. I think it's just a carryover from other contests.

  73, Bill W6WRT


  ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------


  On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:55:47 +0000 (GMT), Roger Cooke
  <g3ldi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

  >, it really was amazing how many stations did not stay around for 
confirmation
  _______________________________________________
  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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>