On Thu, 6 May 99 13:29:45 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Currently there is nothing that rewards for both directions being
>>correct. If I shortchange the other guy while I'm running and he can't
>>get back to me for corrections, I loose nothing. I identify
>>infrequently and cause call sign problems at the other end, I don't
>>get penalized, he does. If I get the bonus only when BOTH he and I are
>>correct BOTH ways, maybe I take some interest in practices that also
>>improve the other guy's chances.
>
>This is crap! If you get my info right and I don't get yours because I
>am not sure for some reason, NEITHER of us should get any points. The
>purpose of the contest is not to get incredible runs, but to make QSOs (A
>QSO is a confirmed 2 way contact). Sure, runs are good for egos and I
>think that's why some people are pissed for getting penalized. But if
>you identify infrequenctly and cause problems at the other end you SHOULD
>NOT get points while screwing others. Listen to your language, "If I
>short change the other guy....I loose nothing." What kind of crap is
>that?
Having a bad day?
If you read closely you will see that I offer the thought as a
malintent for consideration, something that is permitted under the
current rules, and propose a solution for it, I DON'T recommend the
malintent. This is a common language device for turning over ideas in
written, spoken communications.
Take a nap and read it again. You're grousing at the fellow that
agrees with you.
>It's sad that I've learned some many contesters are only interested in
>their scores. Before signing on to this reflector and reading all this
>stuff I used to pride myself in the fact that Ham Radio contesting is the
>only competition I know of in the world where in order to score points
>you have to help someone else score points as well; the guy who helps the
>most other people wins. Now I am not so sure. All that it seems like
>people want are high run rates and points for themselves. Who cares
>about the other guy unless I get extra points for helping him?
>
>Makes me sick. Perhaps I'll just leave this reflector and pretend about
>contesting like I used to. I am embarassed to say I am in the same hobby.
>
>No 73 this time,
I've never had a ham shoot at me, or try to set my house on fire. If I
get on a repeater with an emergency, I've always been helped. I have
found the ham contesting community to be cordial and a lot of fun,
though we ALWAYS disagree on some stuff. Only a tiny handful over the
years would I NOT want as a neighbor, or trust my kids with.
Whether you like it or not, I insist on treating you as a human being
with inate dignity, someone whose time and space upon the planet
counts for something, and whose posts to a listserve deserve reading
and consideration, even if I disagree.
Many people have died to give us a country with the privilege of
open, cordial disagreement. I refuse to show disrespect for their
sacrifice.
THEREFORE,
73, and I hope tomorrow is better. See you on in the contests.
Guy.
>
>Jon
>KE9NA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting!
>
>
>Jon Ogden
>
>jono@enteract.com
>www.qsl.net/ke9na
>
>"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
73, Guy
--. .-..
Guy Olinger, K2AV
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|