May be that it is a common mistake for, let me say, the exchange field
in the log.
Where there is the exchange field some peoples enter what is EXCHANGE
in the wrong way.
So EXCHANGE is RST and serial number and they place over there:
599001
The have the S&P answer macro as:
<EXCH> <EXCH>
As a result they poorly get on air with:
599001 599001
But, worst, somebody don't look at what is getting out from his
radio/s ... that's really unbelievable I hope that nobody get offense
by my words. Anyone of us could make errors. Even unconsciously. But
us are responsible to consciously, we must, observe what's going on
and do it in the right way, changes may happen in the real way of our
life. At least. Please take care, TU.
The 599 is the most unneeded part of the exchange repeating it is a
non sense. if required by the rules, and it is almost anytime
required - there was already this discussion here.
Better to have in the ECHANGE filed of the logger just the serial #
001
As to leave te RST alone in the macro:
1] <RST> <EXCH> <EXCH>
Or
2] <RST>-<EXCH>-<EXCH>
As to result in TXing data like:
1] 599 001 001
2] 599-001-001
Other various exchanges serial number that I have seen are deprecated
variables like:
5NN, as already told, 599 1 1, 599 WA WA DE ... and several others
already pinpointed here several times. It even right to be there
repeating this as not anybody was here since forever.
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
PS as us peoples doesn't get acquainted with the right form it is
perfectly normal to get those not so god, error prone, time wasting
answers. That's right. But anyway somebody is still using those year
by year ... isn't? I care, even if wrong, to look and change it as
suggested. PSE do the same: TU. ... and think that there are several
other aspects that are covered here on the email list time over time.
I must make a reason of the why I am here: to learn and apply what I
have learned.
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 21:54:35 -0800
From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cut Numbers Revisited
Message-ID: <tpppc95o4f7j8nsvnv7ki1tgc69d8ahf72@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped)
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 04:26:42 -0000, Rex wrote:
>The RTTY message I most dislike is K7QQ DE W6WRT 599004 599004 Or
>
>whatever QSO nr.
>
>K7qq
REPLY:
Don't know why Rex used my call in his example, but just for the record, I
never use that format. And if you are using N1MM Logger, you can click
anywhere in the 599004 and it will capture only the 004. Don't know if other
programs do that or not.
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|