CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Too Much 'Assistance'?

To: Tony Brock-Fisher <barockteer@aol.com>, reflector cq-contest <CQ-Contest@Contesting.COM>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Too Much 'Assistance'?
From: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
Reply-to: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:56:43 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
There is actually a 3rd option (Not MY opionion, but I know it well)

"Spirt" and "Intent" don't matter, only the RULES matter, and if you can find a 
loophole, go for it (Hey, we can say that SO2R is really a violation of the 
intent of "single" - I won't but...)

To quote Junior Johnson (NASCAR Racer, Owner, car designer - guy who first used 
drafting...)
"If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin" 

There are LOTS of grey areas in rules.  I cam across one in a Robotics 
competition we just finished building for.  Rules say 1/4" pneumatic tube, max 
ID of .188 (they supply the exact tubing).  They say NOTHING about running 
pieces in parallel.  We decided against that design, because if they ruled 
against it at tech inspection, we'd have been dead - BTW the cylinders and air 
supply were 1/8 pipe, so we could have put in a Tee, and doubled our air flow...

On 2/20/2014 Tony Brock-Fisher wrote:

>  Some will agree it 
> clearly violates the spirit and intent of the rules if not the letter;
> others will argue it's the same as what has been permitted and condoned
> for years


-- 
73 de KG2V - Charles Gallo
Quality Custom Machine-shop work for the radio amateur (sm)


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

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

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