> > Is it because all of us are guilty of breaking at least one of the rules as
> > defined by Doug (re: CT's F8 feature)? So we don't want to talk about it!
> > 73,
> > Henry Pollock - WB4HFL
> > email@example.com
> Doug's article did not discuss actual contest rules but
> a "plain lanuage way of doing rules". Any resemblance between
> actual contest rules and the article is another subject?
> At least that's the way I understood it.
> In that regard, plain lanuage rules sound OK to me.
> 73 Robert WB5CRG firstname.lastname@example.org
yes, he does start out that way, but quickly degenerates into attacking
specific operating practices and software capabilities. on page 16
he breaks down all the way and starts analyzing a specific cqww rule
and giving interpretations of what it means and what he would like it
to say, this is far from providing an example of what plain language
rules would look like. and in this section he goes on to expand the
meaning of a rule that is clearly specific to the s/o assisted catagory
to include all entry classes.
if this were anyone but a member of the cq contest committee i would
brush it off as just another disgruntled op venting his dislike of
certain rules. but i can't help but feel that because he is on the
committee that these interpretations and his wishes may find there way
into the rules in the future.
email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org