[PVRCNC] cut numbers

Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:07:57 -0500

Well, I wouldn't stake your emotional stability on getting that one
across.

Personally, cut numbers, except for 5NN and the T for zero, give me
fits. Half the time I have to ask for repeat.

----- Original Message -----
From: "alsopb" <[email protected]>
To: "Guy Olinger, K2AV" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PVRCNC] cut numbers

Which should disqualify the people submitting logs saying they sent
5991059 and actually sent something else.

I think entering anything in the log but what was sent is an
invitation to "determine the intent" of the sender-- maybe they were
actually sending a base 36 numeric number.  You know the issues that
determining intent raised recently. HI.

I do think that one should be able to submit and have accepted logs
which contain what was actually received.

73 de Brian/K3KO

"Guy Olinger, K2AV" wrote:
>
> You will find that the material which the log checkers receive from
> the senders shows 599 and numeric serial numbers.
>
> The log checkers are checking you against 599 1059, not 5NN AT5N.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary J. Ferdinand" <[email protected]>
> To: "PVRC/NC" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [PVRCNC] cut numbers
>
> Brian, the cut numbers are just a "new code"... surely you're up to
> some
> "morse modifications, no?"    :-))))
>
> I'd hate to see cut nums required.  Then we'd be forced to copy the
> 599 vs
> 5NN instead of just letting TR do its thing. Gosh, we'd have to COPY
> something.
>
> I'm one of those who would like to see RST eliminated or replaced by
> something non repetitive such as SIX-character grid square.  Now
> that's
> masochistic, eh?
>
> 73,
>
> Gary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of alsopb
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:49 AM
> > To: PVRCNC
> > Subject: [PVRCNC] cut numbers
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I wonder if the log checkers are ever going to get real picky and
> > start disqualifying logs which don't log cut numbers as they are
> > sent.  For example, 5nneee logged as 599111 would be DQ'd.  On the
> > other hand, I wonder if logs which enter the cut numbers as send
> would
> > be accepted.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with TR-LOG but it seems to me it would be useful
> if
> > this cut number to real number conversion were handled
automatically
> > when an exchange is entered. Neither CT nor NA does this. I've
been
> > thinking of just typing in the cut numbers and post processing the
> > Cabrillo file to do the conversion.  Frankly, doing the conversion
> > during logging really seems to slow me up.
> >
> > 73 de Brian/K3KO
> > _______________________________________________
> > PVRCNC mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PVRCNC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
>
> _______________________________________________
> PVRCNC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc