----- Original Message ----
I am sorry the BARC is making people lie. It seemed like the best "solution"
given the paramters.
And many thanks to the 400 or so of you who actually figure out how to do
this without complaining.
---------------------------
You seem to be taking this much too personally, Tree. The issue has nothing to
do with the *excellent* work that BARC does (and continues to do). It simply
happens that BARC's Stu Perry event was the one that was referenced as an
example of the problem with (1) parsing on "white space" rather than
field-position and (2) requiring 599 reports when RST is not exchanged. I've
run across similar issues with other (non BARC) events, too (as I said before).
Let's instead, focus on the issue without regard as to what the examples may
be. The issue is that of *requiring* electronic submitters to send a log that
includes artificial or synthesized information.
Why is that a bad idea? Because one never knows what future decisions are made
based on historic data. There are those that say, "No data is better than bad
data". In this case, packing a log wit 599's is outright "make believe" data.
Even so, it is BARC's (EXCELLENT) event. BARC will do what they need to in
order to make the job easier for themselves (and who can blame them?) I am
simply offering a point of view that was not previously considered and stand by
my plea that robot writers review their code to assure that data is parsed by
column so as to avoid pitfalls as discussed in this thread.
In the mean time...thank you BARC for a v-e-r-y fun contest!
Ev, W2EV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|