--- Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:
> A solution that only a lawyer could love:
>
Ron,
Since you mention lawyers, you lead to another
potentially serious problem for the ARRL. In the
legal world precedence is as important as anything,
and the ARRL has already set a bad precedence. By
publically stating that they don't care if you follow
the check rule or not, in essence they have stated
that they don't care if their contest rules are
followed or not. The next time a contester is
disqualified for violation of a rule, any lawyer worth
his/her weight in salt should be able to get the score
reinstated based on this precedence.
How can you disqualify people for violation of some
rules, but not others-and people have publically
stated on this list that they purposefully and
willfully violated the check rule, with no
ramifications from the ARRL for such an admission? It
seems to me to be awfully discriminatory to say we are
going to disqualify contester X for violating a rule,
but that contester Y (who stated that they violated a
rule) will not be disqualified.
73s John AA5JG
__________________________________________________
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
|