Mike's a newcomer Jim, but trust me, he's a good contester getting better.
And with all due respect (and you do have my respect, as you know), what has
Mike's seeming inability to work you under his own call the past few years
have to do with his skills or experience as a contester?
You won't find either of my calls in any of your recent logs. That has
nothing to do with my experience or skills as a contester, and everything to
do with life changes that have kept me off the air of late; something the
new QTH will cure as I get settled into it.
Does that mean my opinions can be marginalized because I wasn't able to get
on the air for a few years? Because that's the impression I'm starting to
get from certain other commenters on this topic. Please don't be one of
73, ron w3wn
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:03:25 -0800
From: "Jim Neiger" <email@example.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SRe: What I want for Christmas
To: "Michael Coslo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "CQ-Contest@contesting. com"
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