I have been observing this whole thing as an innocent bystander. I wasn't
at the station in question during the contest, so I have no idea what
actually happened there. I don't know what the contest sponsors saw that
made them DQ the station. But I do know that if I were wronged, I would
present whatever data I could amass as evidence of my innocence. If the
contest sponsors would still not change their position, I know that
complaining about them would accomplish exactly nothing. I would just let
it slide. Or in the words of John Cougar Mellencamp, "Suck it up and tough
it out and be the best you can."
73, Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I fully agree on your last statement.
>
> If we (the contest community), start doubting the ability and commitment
> our contest sponsor show to our hobby, then time to consider digging deep
> for the stamp collection we started as young kids.
>
> The crocodile tears we see when someone is "caught with the beard stuck in
> the mailbox" are just the expected reaction from someone previously we
> trusted.
>
> CQWW CC and others: Keep the pressure high on anyone who made the decision
> to compromise his or her ethics - just for the purpose of "being part of
> the elite"....
>
> Several excellent contesters who actually belonged to the extremely
> talented group, by a few wrong decisions, DQd themselves out from our
> Gentlemens Club... They will have a tremendously hard way back to be
> accepted as honest contesters.... Such guys might really have to find that
> stamp collection again ;)
>
> Fair play Conresring rulezzz!
>
> 73 de RM2D (SM6LRR), Mats
>
> PS In this latest case, my intuition tells me not only fake spots was the
> issue. Score difference between winner and 2-5th position at least make me
> suspicious if other known methods also might have been used.... Calling him
> endless times with 1 kW without results on low bands when he was weak made
> me wonder "how high is this guy's noise floor"... or is he really LP
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 at 06:35, Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, its not KP4XX, its KP4KE. We all know it, so lets stop beating
> > around the bush.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition to know - beyond physics power excursions - I caught KP4KE
> > spoofing my call on DX Summit and spotting himself. He asked me to spot
> > him
> > and I declined. I am not even connected to the internet for contests at
> > the
> > time of that event which I believe was around 2004. Later, in
> researching
> > any spots of me during the contest, I find to my surprise that I have
> > magically spotted KP4KE at the time he asked me too.
> >
> >
> >
> > I brought it up to the ARRL Committee at the time. To my knowledge,
> > nothing
> > ever happened about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I applaud committees from weeding out the bad apples in the sport. There
> > is
> > much more work to do.
> >
> >
> >
> > 733
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|