[PaQSO] What's all the fuss about DUPES, anyway?

[Hank Greeb]

I usually don't comment in another state's party e-mail list.

BUT, logging dupes SHOULD BE DONE!  Yes, even my meagre log for last 
Saturday and Sunday's PAQSO party, which has less than 20 Q's, (because 
I was distracted doing other things this weekend) has one contact which 
some op said was a dupe, and didn't want to take it. Yes, MAYBE I was in 
his log, but a careful search of my log resulted in NIL (NOT IN LOG) @ 
N8XX.  I took the time to argue with the DOLT who was saying that I was 
a DUPE, and he finally took it.

Probably this DOLT, the LID operator @ N8XX, or my crummy, 10 year old 
computer, or some combo thereof, accidentally scrubbed the first record 
of a QSO with the PA station.  So I needed the contact.

In >99.44% of the contests I've entered, DUPES are allowed, there is NO 
penalty for having a DUPE.  It takes considerably less time to log a 
dupe than to argue about it.   I "probably" have a half dozen or more 
"DUPES" in any log from a contest in which I take even a semi-serious 
interest.  I log em and consider it a privilege the other person wants 
my contact in duplicate, sometimes triplicate.

So, this DOLT, LID, INCOMPETENT OPERATOR who is the usual operator @ 
N8XX is amazed, amused, and befuddled at all the comments about dupes in 
logs from the Pennsylvania QSO Party.

If the rules forbid dupes, or penalize people for having them, they 
really need an overhaul.

I now get off my soapbox and return to my feeble attempts at occasional 
contesting.

72/73 de n8xx Hg (alias the LID, DOLT, INCOMPETENT ONE)
QRP >99.44% of the times