Rex and John,
I appreciate the comments. Here are my responses:
John,
What is ?objective? about signal strength is that it is based upon whatever a
signal meter reads. But, although perceptions of the signal meter may differ,
if you and I were watching a signal meter we could probably reach an agreement
as to where the needle is pointing.
So, WT2P?s with his ?ghetto? radio would, I concede, be able to ?objectively?
give everyone a 59. If you and I were standing over his shoulder (refereeing
him) I am sure that we would agree about that.
I will also concede that words like ?objective? are politically charged. They
usually refer to what some critical mass of people agrees about (and we can
debate what mass of people to analyze), but, as a practical matter, outside
pure mathematics, that is the best that mankind can do.
Rex,
>If you have someone hanging over your shoulder to act as a verify the signal
>report, Would that not be some sort of ASSISTANCE ???
No. This would be an referee. Sort of like at WRTC.
Anyway, my comments were directed people critiquing 4O3A. I listened to him
for quite some time. I noticed that he wasn?t giving signal reports. But,
nobody repeat nobody asked for a signal report. So, let he who is without
sin...
And speaking of sins, in terms of preserving the integrity of any contest,
omitting signal reports really is not that big a deal as compared to the
debates of assistance, generating false calls, cheerleading, etc. I attribute
all the comments about omission to either noticing bona fide mistakes by
operators, or to critiques about style. I can?t really bring myself to
conclude that this is ?cheating.?
73, Dave/KA1NCN Dave@KA1N.CN
---------------------------------
Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one
month at no cost.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|