Message-ID: <000801c09b81$a093c860$116668d5@oemcomputer>
From: "mike.dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <3A92A910.108E46E9@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Subject: LF: Re: TR QSO
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:10:54 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

GI3KEV wrote:
> As John points out EME procedure(TMO reporting) means full callsigns and
> reports must be fully exchanged between the two parties ......... .......
> On the vhf and hf bands a qso also means the same thing but using the
> RST procedure.

What rubbish. Thousands of QSOs take place on the HF bands, especially
during contests and DXpeditions where neither station sends both calls, and
the report is always 599 no matter what the RST really is. This is
considered absolutely normal practice. Just try sending both calls on the
frequency of the D68C expedition and see what happens to you!

To be valid, a QSO must include the exchange of some information not
previously known. This was the T, M or O report. There must also be no
abiguity about who is being worked. Unless someone else with a similar
callsign claims to have been on the precise frequency with a good signal,
there seems no doubt whatsoever, that what was received came from the right
stations. A 160m sked where calls are known in advance and 599 is exchanged
is much less valid than what Larry and Laurie did.

Whether the timescale made it valid is a separate issue, but don't compare
with HF procedures - it doesn't work.

Mike, G3XDV