RST system problem is so many don't understand what any report is other than
599 because that's all they can copy. Ever try sending a C for chirp, or
anything less than 9 for T? And ample reason for both. Few will understand.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 22, 2012, at 22:13, k6xt <k6xt@k6xt.com> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|