>Does anyone know why so many people send TU ?
Convention? It's what we heard the 'big boys' use when we were
learning contesting.
>Maybe you think it
>is more polite than R but it takes a bit longer to send, and
what we're
>talking about here is efficiency in making Qs.
True, but "73" and "test" are much longer, but people still use
it; even the 'big boys'.
I catch myself sending
>TU sometimes, but only because everyone else seems to do it.
It's tough succumbing to peer group pressure, isn't it? I hate
when that happens.
:-)
When
>I am concentrating on running a pileup (a rare enough thing from
>G-land) I use R or if the pile gets really busy, just send my
callsign as
>the invitation for the next call.
I like the idea of "R". It's a more appropriate and correct form
of acknowledgement of the exchange received. But, "TU" is so
pervasive that it's accepted also. As to the length of one over
the other, I waste more time waiting for someone to sign their
call the second time.
Having spent much time as the caller in the QSO, I think I feel a
bit uneasy about the completeness of the QSO if the running
station 'acknowledges' my report by simply
sending his callsign to solicit the next QSO. I WANT
acknowledgement. I want recognition that what I sent has been
received. A callsign doesn't cut it for me. Throw me a bone, be
it an "R" or "TU" or whatever, but not just the callsign.
73,
dale, kg5u
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|