Good morning, Rich,
If you were assisted, and Doug was non, then that is a proper comparison.
Although it appears I failed, I was simply trying to state that the actual
comparison of N2IC to K4XS did not carry much weight because of the extreme
difference between the two different operating locations.
Thank you for listing a more proper comparison. Congrats. As I stated,
YMMV.
73 de Milt, N5IA
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 5:22 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
OK,fine.
2011 (ssb):
NN3W - 11,828,236
K1DG - 9,459,060
Note that K1DG is closer to Europe than I was...
73 Rich NN3W
On 12/11/2014 11:57 PM, Milt -- N5IA wrote:
HMMMMMMM. I wonder where K4XS is located?
N2IC is located just 60.66 miles from AZ and Zone 3; the FAR, FAR west of
Zone 4, and only 320.46 miles from the nearest waters of the Pacific Ocean
(Gulf of California).
If K4XS is in Florida, as his QRZ address says he is, then his station is
ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and FORTY miles to the east of N2IC, in the
eastern/southeastern portion of Zone 3.
I find this 'comparison' to NOT be a good comparison. YMMV.
73 de Milt, N5IA
-----Original Message----- From: K4XS via CQ-Contest
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:30 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
Here's one for you:
2013 CQWW SSB
K4XS SOAB Assisted: 10218476
N2IC SOAB: 7528827
K4XS
In a message dated 12/8/2014 9:33:00 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
vk4ts@outlook.com writes:
"I still find it odd in many years I cannot recall an assisted score
beating
unassisted in a major contest. (CQWW CQWPX) "
Should say TOP score assisted beating TOP score unassisted
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
VK4TS Trent Sampson
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 6:56 AM
To: 'Paul O'Kane'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
Do you run the risk of having participation certificates when there are
too
many categories ?
Does that really find the best contesters ? Personally I don't like
cluster
use (old school) but if the rules to qualify are such then maybe I need
to
re-address my stance if I want to qualify.
I still find it odd in many years I cannot recall an assisted score
beating
unassisted in a major contest. (CQWW CQWPX)
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Paul O'Kane
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 5:21 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
On 08/12/2014 16:40, Yuri wrote:
Putting this usually endless and useless assisted/unassisted and
single-op/multi-op discussion behind for now,
If they're so useless, why then does CQ recognise the value of having
separate categories. It's worth taking a look at
http://www.cqww.com/raw.htm?mode=cw - showing the calculated raw scores
for
CQWW CW 2014.
There are 46 categories listed, and that's without including the Classic
and
Rookie sub-categories. Is anyone complaining?
There are many reasons why CQWW is the world's most popular contest, and
the
number of categories is one of them.
This "useless discussion" is unlikely to go away, and it would be helpful
if
the WRTC2018 Committee members reconsidered their unanimous decision to
eliminate unassisted categories.
They might all be mistaken.
73,
Paul EI5DI
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4235/8721 - Release Date: 12/12/14
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|