I appreciate your (many) comments, Mike, but curious to just how serious a
contester you might be?
I did a quick scan of several of my logs of the past two years, both CW and
SSB, some all-band, some single band, totalling almost 25,000 QSO's from
ZD8Z and 9Y4AA, and nary a sign of your call N3LI or your former call
KB3EIA. And since I am notoriously easy to work, I guess our paths just
didn't cross? Or maybe I need to go listen to my tapes and see if maybe I
Or perhaps you're just 'lobbing the hand grenade' back over the wall?
Jim Neiger N6TJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Coslo" <email@example.com>
To: "CQ-Contest@contesting. com" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What I want for Christmas
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Jim Neiger wrote:
>> Holiday Greetings.
>> Since I "lobbed the hand grenade" over the wall, to quote my Uncle,
>> its been truly interesting and remarkable to read the many
>> comments, ideas,
>> criticisms, and the personal 'thank you's' from the 99% who thought
>> it a
>> good idea, more or less. For those who commented about the other
>> 1%, not
>> to worry, once a jerk, always a jerk. A real plus has been the so
>> comments, from world-wide who never regularly post here.
>> Santa, I'd like to herein make my Christmas Wish List:
> So Jim, let's say you get everything you want.
> It won't stop cheating. I'd go on record as saying that cheating
> will increase. More rules, more opportunities.
> What do you propose as new anti-cheating rules after that? I can see
> that you have the beginnings of the new set of demands in asking
> Santa to speak with those who run over legal power.
> How about each station having to purchase and use a recording device
> that records time on/time off, band changes, output power, and any
> other possible cheat mechanism on a NIST certified and sealed "black
> box" attached to all needed points at a station.?
> Tongue in cheek of course
> But seriously, when you want to:
>> (5) Please consider the notion of everyone wishing to be judged as
>> a Serious
>> competitor, at least audio-tape the contest, and have it available,
>> the judges request it be mailed in. Cost of a recorder: less than
> You are setting up a two tier system of "serious" and "not serious"
> So if I somehow do well, but I didn't think I was a "serious" (could
> you define that anyhow?) do I get DQ'ed if I didn't record myself?"
> And if I get DQ'ed:
>> (4) Santa, please install a painful penalty for being DQed. A
>> to-be-determined period in which the culprit cannot participate.
>> Put this
>> penalty into effect immediately, retro-active to this 2007 CQ
>> WW. . Give
>> each transgresser a 30 day grace period in which to now change the
>> of the pap they've already submitted, with no penalty. I think
>> this penalty
>> will go a long way to discourage cheating.
> So here I am, the improving "non serious" contester who just gets
> penalized, and you apparently want me to suffer painfully. I'm just
> going to participate in the contest next year, eh?
> Although you are looking at the situation narrowly (changing
> category), your painful penalties would span the DQ universe.
> Your vision of future contesting is quite chilling, Jim. Is a guilty
> until proven innocent system, and it doesn't address one of the most
> important aspects of contesting, in that it is supposed to be fun. As
> such, it is quite regressive.
> Of course, if there are less participants, there will be less
> cheating! ;^)
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list