CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Unique perspectives

To: "Zack Widup" <w9sz@prairienet.org>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Unique perspectives
From: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:32:16 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
This reminds me of a common practice in the local area in the early  60's, 
2 of the local clubs were in cloise competion and it was a practice for 
somone to take a mobile station down the road with a list of club members 
and work the club FD station with the club roster then switch to another 
band and do the same thing.

I don't know how long this went on but that is the story that went around. 
This practice brought around rule changes that only one call could be used 
from a station unless there were 2 licensed from that station.

Quack


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zack Widup" <w9sz@prairienet.org>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Unique perspectives


> Reminds me of a Field Day many years ago (> 30).  I recall vividly when a
> couple of the FD ops in our group just picked another station at random,
> worked him, then sat and fed him about 15 QSO's using callsigns of other
> club members who weren't active during FD that year.
>
> This was in the days of paper logs and dupe sheets.  I'm sure the logs of
> the other station were not scrutinized carefully.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Warren  C. Stankiewicz wrote:
>
>> > I know it's a horrible thing to think about, but what is to stop 
>> > someone
>> > from just putting in a bunch of callsigns in their log to make it look
>> > like
>> > they worked a bunch of uniques.  I know no ham would do that, but---
>>
>> This was actually tried once in an ARRL contest. I'm not going to say 
>> which
>> one it was, or when, or who. However, they worked a large number of 
>> uniques.
>>
>> And when this was discovered, we contacted the holders of the 
>> questionable
>> calls, and asked if they had made the contacts or not. When they replied 
>> in
>> the negative, the individual was referred to the ARRL Awards Committee, 
>> who
>> voted to disqualify them.
>>
>> Which is the way it should be done, if it's going to be done at all.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Warren, NF1J
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 7/25/2006
>
> 

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

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