I hope nobody leaves the reflector over this discussion!
To the fiercest competitors among us, the rules matter A LOT. We should
all be pleased to see the community taking the rules seriously and
discussing strategies that some feel bend the rules and others feel
strongly do not. I'd say all this is a sign of a healthy, competitive
community. If rule nuances didn't trigger impassioned debate, what would
be the point of having those rules?
We all respect winning in radiosport because we respect the worthy
competition and the difficulty of coming up with strategies that are both
within the rules and haven't been thought of already.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Martin Durham <W1md@w1md.net> wrote:
> I should take the better part of (fill in your favorite adjective here)
> and not reply because this really doesn't deserve reply. But, I feel I must.
>
> First...I'm not much of an 'expert' on CQ-Contest Reflector...I don't
> contribute thousands of Posts like you do Mike...so I'm a neophyte when it
> comes to 'reflector discussion'.
>
> HOWEVER, I do think I have a little bit of expertise when it comes to
> contesting...I've been contesting since 1980 (first field day as a novice)
> and KA1EEF (scored 14th in the world for CQWW SSB QRP...Licensed in March
> 1980) and have put up literally hundereds of millions of points in ARRL/CQ
> and other contests (most as a member of a multi-op...NB1H my first Extra
> Call, then W1MD and this host of other stations/calls, K1ST, K1AR, K1EA,
> KC1XX, NQ4I, K8AZ, K1XX, V26, VP5, J38, PJ2, and PJ4 come to mind). 538,
> 852, 302 points as part of Multi-op's and my own single op's just since
> 2002 (That equates to 'just a few' hours behind the wheel...so I think I
> have some authority to talk) Half a billion points since 2002. Oh, the J38X
> operation was a 2man M/M...we didn't bother with the M/2 band change rules.
>
> The PJ4G team needs no defense because they did nothing wrong. They
> operated within the RULES...PERIOD. That someone made a recording and chose
> to 'stir the pot' on this reflector is a totally different subject.
>
> They don't need to provide a 'written' statement...IT WAS WITHIN THE rules.
>
> There have been many wins from the PJ4G station...in both CQWW and ARRL.
> That station is well designed and many well known contesters have operated
> from that location.
>
> THE OPERATION FOLLOWED the RULES. Period, end of discussion. NOW...you
> want to discuss changing the rules...go ahead.
>
> As for your ad-hominem attack on NA2AA...why? Is that the level you have
> to stoop to? I understand NA2AA's frustration. What special software?? He
> wrote a Duping program before most people were USING software, and then a
> logging program...there is a problem with that??
>
> There are a 'group' on this reflector that talk as if they are on Mt.
> Olympus, preaching down to the rest of us 'lowly' contestors as if we don't
> know what we're talking about. See above...1/2 Billion points contributed
> to contest scores since 2002.
>
> You and a few others talk a lot here on the reflector...and pontificate as
> to what is right, what is not right and who should be able to do what. How
> about your experience?? I've worked on stations from my current home
> station (K3/AL-80B/DX-88/HF-2V) that has scored over 1million points in
> CQWW CW to stations like K8AZ, NQ4I, NB1H/K1ST for large M/M operations in
> the US. I regularly 'setup' the PJ4X station (we have to build the station
> inside and take it apart every contest...radios/switching/amp's/computer
> network/), did a field day setup at J38X and V26...you get the picture (or
> maybe you don't).
>
> Now, I see you have been in a few contests as well since 2004...about 25
> Million points worth or maybe 1/20 the operating I've done...
>
> It's you and your ilk that keep a lot of folks OFF the reflector...or
> 'lurking' as readers and not contributors.
>
> No ill will intended, but get your facts straight...
>
> 73,
>
> W1MD
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of W0MU
> Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:24:13 PM
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QSY
>
> When will we see a written statement from the PJ4G guys about how this
> practice is great for contesting for X reasons and that all contests
> might want to consider it because of X.
>
> There is no statement because they are upset that their little "exploit"
> "loophole" etc was exposed for all to see and they are upset. Maybe
> they are embarrassed as the vocal majority seems to feel this was done
> against the spirit of the rules and hobby?
>
> We have had many arguments for disallowing the practice. The only pro I
> saw was one of the technical merits of doing such and we should not
> thwart advances in technology, which I agree but not at the expense of
> our already limited bands.
>
> I read with interest that NA2AA had created special software share just
> among friends.......It sure makes me wonder what that software is
> doing. This information was obtained from whoever wrote he QRZ bio, as
> it was done in 3rd person so I have to guess that it was written by
> another?
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
> On 3/19/2017 1:34 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> > Yes, it does.
> >
> > I guess flouting the spirit of the rules, while rubbing our noses in it,
> is
> > meant to be inspiration? If that was his intent, didn't work. Instead,
> it
> > reminds of me Scut Farkus and Grover Dill.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > W0MU Mike Fatchett
> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 10:24 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QSY
> >
> > This speaks volumes........Loud and clear.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > W0MU
> >
> >
> > On 3/17/2017 1:45 PM, David Minster wrote:
> >> Yep. I'm out. We'll go on winning contests while you figure out ways
> to
> > stop us, or lick your wounds when you lose. Or blame propagation. Or...
> >> David, NA2AA (PJ4G team)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|