[Moon] QSO or not?

[DF2ZC]

Oh yes John...how could I be that unprecise. Actually it wasn`t so much a type error but a click & paste error. Are you satisfied now? I hope so.

This will be my final post on this thing...I should perhaps consider giving up on going to dxps if I need to spend so much time afterwards countering malicous allegations here on this reflector and on a particular blog. Which maybe stole my time to doublecheck before uploading the log.

73 Bernd DF2ZC

----- Ursprungliche Nachricht -----
   >Von: "John Peters"<john.peters at iae.nl>
   >Gesendet: 02.05.07 18:09:11
   >An: "jimmyv at hol.gr"<jimmyv at hol.gr>, "df2zc at gmx.de"<df2zc at gmx.de>
   >Cc: "moon at moonbounce.info"<moon at moonbounce.info>
   >Betreff: Re: [Moon] QSO or not?
     >Hi All, Jimmy, Bernd and Joe in speciffic,
   >
   >I've read the mailings with intrest, but excuse me to say.. Bernd if you 
   >made a typing error.. you must have made 2 errors..... All your NC contacts 
   >contain NO Received report only the one with PE1BTX you received a RO report 
   >while PE1BTX says he had no good decode and never has send RO
   >
   >So it seems to that Jimmy had good reasons to assume there was something 
   >strange going on.....
   >
   >73! de John PA5MS
   >
   >
   >
   >----- Original Message ----- 
   >From: <jimmyv at hol.gr>
   >To: <df2zc at gmx.de>
   >Cc: <moon at moonbounce.info>
   >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:17 PM
   >Subject: RE: [Moon] QSO or not?
   >
   >
   >Dear Bernd
   >
   >thank you for your reply.
   >I am glad it was a typing error, as this can happen to anyone.
   >Now even a mistake in a cw qso, one side thinking it was complete and other 
   >side
   >believing it is not, can also very rarely happen under marginal conditions, 
   >even
   >to experienced operators.
   >
   >Have a good travel & 73,
   >Jimmy SV1BTR
   >
   >> Dear Jimmy,
   >>
   >> It is an honour to me that you think I make no mistakes. However unlike 
   >> you
   >> and some others I am not perfect. The answer to the noise you΄re making 
   >> below
   >> is rather simple. I made a typing error. This can happen, independant from
   >> the mode of the QSO or NO-QSO.
   >>
   >> I am currently on business travel and will have access to the paper log 
   >> only
   >> this weekend when I am back home. I will then correct the log on my 
   >> website.
   >>
   >> I have never ever had problems with decoding single tones messages but 
   >> every
   >> little mistake seems to serve as a wonderful platformfoor those interested 
   >> to
   >> intrigue against WSJT and DS in particular. BTW I also made a typing error
   >> with Jan DL9KR΄s 70 cm CW qso which I printed as 10z instead of 11z.
   >>
   >> I hope this clarification comes early enough for Peter SM2CEW΄s "The world
   >> ist a disk"  blog, before he starts using my typing error again as an
   >> argument against JT65 DS in toto.
   >>
   >> Of course if it had been a cw QSO and I had made this typing error, nobody
   >> would have written an email o the reflector.
   >>
   >> 73 Bernd DF2ZC
   >>
   >> ----- Ursprόngliche Nachricht -----
   >>    >Von: "jimmyv at hol.gr"<jimmyv at hol.gr>
   >>    >Gesendet: 02.05.07 10:19:54
   >>    >An: "moon at moonbounce.info"<moon at moonbounce.info>,
   >> "moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net"<moon-net at list-serv.davidv.net>
   >>    >Betreff: [Moon-net] QSO or not?
   >>    >
   >>    >Hello all
   >>    >
   >>    >I am trying to understand how JT65 works sometimes (even without Deep
   >> Search!),
   >>    >especially when it comes to expeditions. I am confused.
   >>    >Could you please explain to me how is possible to have a QSO as 
   >> complete
   >> in the
   >>    >log of an expedition, when the station calling them says it is not
   >> complete?
   >>    >However, expedition says it has data files for all QSOs. So does the
   >> station
   >>    >trying to work them. So where is the error?
   >>    >This is even more profound because in the case of JT65 it is even more
   >> difficult
   >>    >to make a personal judgement mistake. Since software algorithms do the
   >> decision
   >>    >making for you and we have been told that reliability of a contact
   >> remains
   >>    >intact. Regardless of signal level.
   >>    >
   >>    >As i do not question the integrity and experience of operators in the
   >> specific
   >>    >expedition (in fact they are experienced operators with good operating
   >>    >standards), neither do i question the experience and integrity of the
   >>    >particular station calling them, then is it the JT65 software 
   >> generating
   >> the
   >>    >error? I think, and hope, not.
   >>    >
   >>    >Perhaps is it the plain shorthand messages? To me, it looks like this
   >> being the
   >>    >reason, because shorthand messages are not accompanied with callsigns
   >> (unless
   >>    >the Big exception of someone transferring both reports and callsigns 
   >> as
   >> unknown
   >>    >text). Therefore, using the standard format of shorthand messages, in 
   >> a
   >> pileup
   >>    >situation, one can not be sure if the RO or Rs received was for him or
   >>    >not...(as logger extract shows below at 5:19)
   >>    >We have seen situations with other expeditions in the past.
   >>    >
   >>    >To substantiate my argument and subsequent confusion with facts, pls 
   >> find
   >> below
   >>    >extracts of ON4KST logger showing PE1BTX saying to ZB2/DH7FB he did 
   >> not
   >> have
   >>    >complete QSO with ZB2 expedition. At the end of this mail, pls see the
   >> log of
   >>    >ZB2 expedition where QSO is listed as complete.
   >>    >
   >>    >Once more, i will repeat this is nothing personal and NOT aiming the
   >> operators
   >   >

[Nachricht abgeschnitten. Tippen Sie auf "Bearb."->"Zum Downloaden markieren", um den Rest der Nachricht abzurufen.]