On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 03:57:25PM -0400, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> >> Put it to you this way, why WOULDN'T you want DC as a mult?
> > How will this improve the NAQP?
> >
> Are you really being that obtuse?
That indeed may be the case.
> More multipliers, more QSOs, more
> challenge, more activity.
Six more possible multipliers.
Is it going to be a challenge to work DC?
As far as QSOs go, I would expect anyone that lives in DC and will do
this contest once DC is a multiplier is already enjoying this
wonderful contest. So I do not see how it will add contacts or are
you saying that DC stations will only operate it if they are
multipliers?
Here is the thing.
I get it.
I think I touched on this in another email.
You would like DC added as a multiplier in the NAQP.
It would make the contest more fun for you.
The people needing your multiplier would be more excited to work you.
These are some of the real reasons that you want to add DC
to the NAQP. It is OK to tell us these reasons.
This will only really change the contest experience for stations in DC
- and that might not be a bad thing. I would suggest you write the
sponsors of the contest and get them to change the rules for you.
And, yes, I too think that it is silly that Rome counts as five DXCC
countries and that there are buildings in NYC that are countries.
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
PS: If they make Blanco County Texas a multiplier in any contest
I will likely operate those contests just as much as I do now.
And I will have just as much fun doing it too! Maybe a bit more.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|