Sorry. I don't think that this is wise.
It brings to mind a small incident many, many moons ago, under my previous
call.
I had just started in a state QSO party. My fourth or fifth contact
informed me I was a dupe.
"Impossible!" I told him. "I've only worked a few people, and you're not
one of them!" But the op insisted, vehemently, so I skipped him and moved
on.
About 15 minutes later, shortly after I'd found a spot to call CQ Contest,
he popped up, with an apology. Seems his software package at the time (what
I don't know, he didn't say & I didn't ask) wasn't programmed properly for a
WN3 2x3 call, or some other prefixes, so it was reporting them as "dupes!"
I have to admit I first told him "gee, I don't know, you insisted before
that I was wrong and that we'd worked before!" I couldn't resist. Then I
worked him.
Moral of the story: Work dupes now, because you never know...
73
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jukka Klemola
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:51 AM
To: 'CQ-Contest'
Subject: [CQ-Contest] The dupes?
Ward's letter tells to log them.
I do not.
Instead I tell the other station QSO B4.
In case of a disagreement, I agree with the station that I remove the
1st QSO and the QSO we will log is the one I leave in the log.
My guesswork in this is if there was the first QSO and it is logged
wrong at either end, it is based on luck who will get a penalty for it.
To avoid confusion, I do not log dupes .. they are worth zero at the
very maximum, in worse scenario they are negative for value.
73,
jukka OH6LI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|