If in fact those using the cluster will compete in the same category as
"pure" single operators, then the contest is cancelled as far as I'm
73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a boy and his radio"
From: "Jim Neiger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:41 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
> AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE, and K1EA, K1AR, K1DG, N2AA,
> N2NC, N2NT, KR2Q, N3ED, K3ZO, KM3T, W3ZZ, N5KO, W5OV, N6AA, N6TR, N6TW,
> N8BJQ, N9RV, W0YK, W0UN, CT1BOH, DJ6QT, DL6RAI, EA3DU, F6BEE, G3SXW,
> JE1CKA, OH2BH, OH2KI, OH2MM, PY5EG, S50A, UA9BA, VE3EJ, VA7RR
> from: Jim Neiger N6TJ
> subject: "The winds of change are a blowin' or The day that contesting
> 1. QUESTION: Will the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE open its closed discussions
> of the fate of Single Operator categories to the public or will we first
> learn of them when the rules are changed?
> 2. PREMISE: The CQ CONTEST log checkers cannot efficiently or accurately
> ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, claiming
> to be Single Operator, but when really operating Single Operator -
> 3. WHAT THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING: Given (2), above,
> eliminate the Single Operator category, and everyone is then Single
> Operator - Assisted.
> My opinions / comments:
> (1) Needless to say, given (3) above, to be competitive all must then use
> packet, or skimmers, or...................?
> (2) Can I assume that not everyone desires to use packet or skimmers?
> (3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all past
> records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals will
> soon rival those of the Multi-multi submittals.
> (4) Packet is used and enjoyed by many. From the DX-end, one can always
> tell when they've just been spotted; the rate really takes off. Great
> fun. Many opinions have been stated about the pros/cons/desires of using
> packet. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, packet,
> skimmers, and the like, is NOT DXing, represents minimal skills, and is
> more like the proverbial 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Great competition.
> (5) QUESTION: Who are these guys that are the members of the CQ CONTEST
> COMMITTEE and hold our collective fate in their hands? Hard working,
> volunteer log checkers, for sure. But does anyone remember voting them
> into office? Who gave them the power to VOTE on these matters of such
> great importance to us all? For those who extol the merits of our
> democratic way of life, no matter how pathetic our elected officials at
> times may be, we at least had the opportunity to vote them in, or out, of
> TO SUMMARIZE: I have been operating CQ contests since 1955. Many. Won a
> couple, lost a bunch. Needless to say, when I resigned from the CQ
> CONTEST COMMITTEE in 1978, my power to vote was gone. All I can do now is
> plea: open up your deliberations and discussions on these matters. Let
> the all of us know who's minds we need to change. What have you got to
> hide? Please do not make this the death of my contesting career, as it
> most certainly will. Thank you.
> s/ Jim Neiger N6TJ
> 17 January 2010
CQ-Contest mailing list