CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: "'cq-contesting cq-contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:33:24 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Joe,

You said:

""Assisted" is simply a shorthand for defining the participation by an
additional person or persons in an "operator" role who is not actually
making the contacts."

No, it's not. If you involve another person in your operation, you are
multi-op. 

Several stations have made same this error and have been disqualified in
recent years.

You also said:

"Since the term first came into use, "assisted" has always meant another
person, whether on site or remotely, who provided spotting information."

No, it has not. It is related to receiving DX alerting assistance from *any*
other source as clearly defined in the rules.

73,

Bob W5OV


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:06 PM
To: ve4xt@mts.net; 'Kerr,Prof. K.M.'; 'Michael Coslo'; 'cq-contesting
cq-contest'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge


> > You do not have the right to define the debate on your own terms. 
> >
> Then, Joe, one question: why do you?

I am not redefining the debate on my own terms as you have done. 
I keep trying to bring the debate back to the traditional frame 
of reference.  "Assisted" is simply a shorthand for defining the 
participation by an additional person or persons in an "operator" 
role who is not actually making the contacts.  Since the term 
first came into use, "assisted" has always meant another person, 
whether on site or remotely, who provided spotting information. 
"Assisted" has never been applied to productivity enhancing 
technology of any description - including those technologies that 
form the basis of skimmer type systems.  




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ve4xt@mts.net [mailto:ve4xt@mts.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:56 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; 'Kerr,Prof. K.M.'; 'Michael Coslo'; 
> 'cq-contesting cq-contest'
> Subject: Re: RE: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > You do not have the right to define the debate on your own terms. 
> >
> Then, Joe, one question: why do you?
> 
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
> 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>