CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW defined "single op"

To: kr2q@optonline.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW defined "single op"
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:07 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:36:53 +0000 (GMT), kr2q@optonline.net wrote:


>Look under the definition of SINGLE OP.  It says, "Those stations at which one 
>person performs all of the operating, logging, and spotting functions."
>
>If is not you (or whomever), then you are not single op.  It has nothing to do 
>with "keyers" or antenna raising, or who cooks your meals, etc.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Everyone with any common sense knows what "single op" and "unasissted"
mean. There are only a very few ops who want to receive assistance and
still claim to be single operator unassisted class. I don't think
those folks can be reasoned with. Instead of operating with the spirit
and intent of the rules, they are constantly looking to redefine words
and phrases to suit their own desires. 

As the Red Queen said to Alice in "Through the Looking Glass", "A word
means exactically what I want it to mean". And that is their motto.

73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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