Shelby Summerville wrote:
>Jeff, AC0C wrote: " Sending the station's call you just worked does not
>benefit anyone."
>
>An opinion to which you are entitled, but I don't completely agree with. On
>a few occasions, I have had the call wrong, when I sent my exchange, and it
>was again wrong, on my screen, when they sent their exchange. Only when I
>sent it again, when "clearing", did it get recognized, and corrected, by the
>sender. Band conditions contribute greatly to what is contained in the
>macros, and having several available benefits everyone.
>
Agreed - the length of the exchanges always has to be balanced against
the risk of points penalties for incorrect logging. That balance is
constantly shifting so there is no solution that fits all cases.
What works for me *most* of the time is:
TU xxxxx
DE GM3W CQ
The first line confirms the previous QSO (and I agree that in most
conditions it is important to confirm *who* was worked); and then <crlf>
draws the line under that QSO.
The second line is simply a short-form CQ call.
It could be made even shorter, but I think the <crlf>DE makes the whole
message clearer and more resistant to corruption.
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|