[PaQSO] rover, you're a dupe

[Jim Stahl]

I would have liked to use NA in the PAQP, had my DOS laptop not died. N1MM+ does not allow mobiles to keep a separate number sequence from each county, which I consider a good thing to do. Fewer numbers for the other guy to copy and type, plus anybody hearing a very low number can infer that they need that station without hearing who it is. Sending NR 273 LUZ does not immediately suggest that I’m a new contact the way sending NR 4 LUZ does.

I’ve used N3FJP at Field Day, and found it to be very strange. And the French guys who do WinTest apparently have never heard about the PAQP.


73  -  Jim   K8MR


> On Oct 16, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Glenn O'Donnell, K3PP <k3pp at k3pp.com> wrote:
> 
> I wonder how many people who should know better still use CT or NA for logging? They were both FB logging programs ... in 1998! Times change, but many people do not. 😊
> 
> Sent from my iPad