[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results

To: "W2RU - Bud Hippisley" <W2RU@frontiernet.net>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results
From: "John Geiger" <w5td@lcisp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 03:17:09 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I couldn't agree more.  But remember, the only way to attract new people
into ham radio and contesting is to completely remove our standards....er,
make licensing easier.

73s John W5TD

----- Original Message -----
From: "W2RU - Bud Hippisley" <W2RU@frontiernet.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:55 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results

> June 2006 QST contains a double-barreled reminder of the unfortunate
> ARRL policy re non-publishing of contest results.
> I was in the midst of hopping between the 2005 Phone SS and 2005 160
> Meter write-ups when I realized that I would not be seeing results of my
> own or my friends' efforts in those pages.  Instead of the articles
> provoking enjoyment and anticipation for upcoming contests, my initial
> interest turned to frustration and disappointment.
> With all due respect to Ford and Kelly, I firmly believe a simple
> tabulation -- in print -- of *all* (repeat -- *all*) entrants by
> Division and Section does more to encourage youngsters, non-contesters,
> and our fellow club members to get on and make QSOs than all the
> wordsmithing about a handful of elite category leaders.
> Furthermore, the inclusion of photographs of entrants whose calls and
> results do not appear elsewhere in those two articles is rotten
> journalism.  Even low-budget local weekly newspapers know better than to
> do that.
> Sad.
> Bud, W2RU
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

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