CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP.......

To: "'S. Markowski Jr.'" <km9m-zig@comcast.net>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP.......
From: "Patrick Hoppe" <phoppe@wi.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:13:35 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Zig,

I disagree - in today's society it is very important that we are all
winners.  There can be no losers.  Since I can place well in the pack but
never win with the current set of rules, I would propose the suggested
classification:

Proposed Entry Class:
Low power, 2 verticals 75 feet 6 inches apart operated by a middle aged,
overweight, graying grandfather of three.  Did I mention ex-boy scout...

Maybe now I will have a chance to win. After all, it not about improving
your skill to be the best operator you can be - it is about winning. :)

Respectfully,
Pat
WW9R

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of S. Markowski Jr.
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:23 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] NAQP.......

All these SUGGESTED class changes, all these different angles on how to 
interpret the rules to suit one's self needs /wants... even when WE ALL 
know what the spirit of the language SUGGESTED meant......

Why don't we JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.............

73,
Zig - KM9M

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>