RR 73 Neil :) :) (I've been sending <call> RRR 73 (with a space between the RRR and 73) and it seems to make most of the sticklers happy - obviously there is always that one person who will never be happy but you can't please everybody!
I'm happy either way and really enjoy the discussion! 73, Jim S. N2ADV > On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Neil Zampella <ne...@techie.com> wrote: > > James, > > you know I agree with you on many things, but this is not one of them. > The original protocol shows that the ending transmission for the station > calling CQ is RRR, there is no need to add a 73. It still takes six > minutes to do a complete QSO even if you go with the RR73 at the end: > > 1: CQ > 2: Reply > 3. Signal Rpt > 4. Reply Signal Rpt > 5. RRR (or in your case RR73) > 6. Reply 73 > > At this point I restart with CQ .. > > I say don't mess with what works. > > Neil Zampella > KN3ILZ > >> On 12/11/15 06:53 am, James Shaver (N2ADV) wrote: >> I would second Igor's request especially since cutting the additional time >> has come in handy during changing HF conditions where the band could drop >> out quickly during a QSO. It may also have the secondary effect of >> eliminating some of the angst exhibited by some operators out there that I'm >> sure we've all seen in one place or another on the various social media >> platforms if it's included as an "official" part of the software. >> >> 73, >> >> Jim S. >> N2ADV > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
