And now we have the longer, lower, wider, heavier, more expensive, FAR
less copiable RST system proposed by N7RR. A typical 120Hz buzz report
might be "PAR". Par for the course? Par for the sending station? PAR for
something nobody understands? I can just imagine. A65XT your signal
report is PAR. Ha. Get a QSL out of that one. And imagine trying to make
it understood between K6XT and A65XT on 160M CW. (What I'd really like
to imagine is A6 anything being strength A in Colorado on 160!)
Or par for a bad idea stillborn?
And what's with "...now antiquated RST system..."? Who says? Where's
the documentation to back that one up?
RST remains alive and well. Its every bit as useful as anything else
with clear definitions in the ARRL op manual. True, the tone part has
fewer exceptions these days but still as nonzero as XRCKO. As to
readability and strength what's changed? Nothing.
I think I'll keep RST PFX for the future.
Oh, in case you haven't read it , see Feb 12 QST p. 77. With respects to
N7RR for calling out a foolish idea. Hey, its the OpEd page. Heat - Kitchen.
--
73 Art K6XT~~
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
As a matter of fact...
We have that 'uselss' "T" hanging out there on the end of RST (for CW
ops). One year while on the way to Field Day a component lead broke in
the bias supply filter in my transmitter. My first two contacts gave me
a zero for the T and I retired the transmitter for the weekend. We
really should mention it if we observe a problem. Hams should not feel
offended if they get a report like that and reporters should be matter
of fact about it and not insulting. My experiences with incidents like
that are much better than what has been described in this thread.
73,
Bill KU8H
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|