CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes.

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Proposed rule changes.
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:53:27 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>


It always amazes me how people can be so declarative about "the way it is", and so narrowly interpretive of it, when expressing their own personal views.

For example, if I happen to read/decode CW off a waterfall display with no other decoding I'm pretty certain that does not put me in an assisted category ... but then, at least I'm willing to express that as opinion and not fact.

Dave   AB7E



On 5/23/2015 9:42 PM, brian coyne wrote:
-
       -

-

   I am really puzzled and exasperated by this continued debate as to what 
constitutes assistance. What is there not to understand?
Let's get back to basics. Our hobby is ham radio, radio being the operative 
word. Radio, cw or voice, is an audio mode, not in any way a visual mode, we 
detect it by hearing and information acquired in any other way is assistance - 
end of.
If guys use any other means of gathering information, including cw decoders, 
then what is the big deal why they should not enter the 'Assisted' category?  
Beats me.
73  Brian  C4Z / 5B4AIZ.


_______________________________________________
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>