Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:06:04 -0000
There's no problem, per se, but the thing is, you've just got X number of points for that contact and now you're telling everyone else where they can get more points. For a competitive person, this
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:57:59 -0000
Yes, he's assisted unless the computer brought him a sandwich. :) Don't forget to turn off all cell phones during contests. 73 -- Paul VO1HE _______________________________________________ CQ-Contes
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:40:44 -0000
I use cut numbers in the RST only and I don't think they should be used in any other part of a contest report. It seems to me that any advantage gained in time by their use would be lost in repeats w
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:30:33 -0000
This reminds me of the "Great Debate of 2006" when some were questioning the "legality" of using random digits in SS to represent their first year of licencing. According to the NAQP rules: "Exchange
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:45:22 -0000
Definitely not. My point is that you can use anything. My only hope is that it would be consistant and, from the trouble it would be to use a different name each time, I seriously doubt anyone would
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:49:48 -0000
Why is this being picked apart again? Items in brackets are sometimes considered to be an example of the main point of the encompassing sentence. So, in rule 4.4 below, there is to be check variable
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:13:00 -0000
I'm sure it was. But that's a bit different than giving random names/checks. I assume that your log would show the name you were given in the previous contact and also show it as the name you give ou
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:33:12 -0000
Wow. All the rules I have seen for contests using serial numbers as part of the exchange stipulate "consecutive" or "progressive" serial numbers. That is a defined rule. 73 -- Paul VO1HE ___________
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:51:47 -0000
When the Admiralty House museum in Mt. Pearl, NL was renovated back in 1996, they installed compact flourescent lights in the hallway outside the radio shack. When these lights are on, the radio is u
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:02:18 -0000
Maybe he WAS running 1969W :) I don't think it matters how much information is disseminated, you'll always have casual passers-by who neither know nor want to know about the rules. They just want to
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:27:37 -0000
Yeah, these concerns crop up after every contest. Personally, I would think that if you are legally allowed to transmit on a frequency, and it isn't in use at the time, go for it. Why is there always
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:36:53 -0000
I guess they can ask but you don't have to do it. You can always say "Sorry, that's against the rules". That's something that they have to deal with. As far as your scenarios, in my opinion: 1. If yo
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:10:09 -0000
<<<SNIP>>> That is the simplest answer. 73 -- Paul VO1HE _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinf
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:11:08 -0000
Here's another idea..... Why not prohibit the use of the cluster for contesting? Pretty simple solution. It seems to be better suited to the locating of DX rather than contesting anyway and would eli
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:04:00 -0000
Maybe. The spot would have to be correct though. Part and parcel of the cluster mentality is that you, seemingly, don't have to ID as often because everyone should know who you are. If everyone used
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:16:45 -0000
I am unhappy. I see by the results that someone denied me the sweep. I lost 4 Qs and, obviously, one mult. I wonder who busted my call. 73 -- Paul VO1HE (NOT VO1SE, UO1HE, 4O1HE, V01HE, etc.) _______
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:24:22 -0000
And thus concludes the demise of amateur radio. Guys, this isn't what I studied to get my ticket for. Count me out. 73 -- Paul VO1HE _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:32:21 -0000
No offense, Gerry, but you can't be serious! I have no problem with people "thinking outside the box" when it comes to improving technology to make things better. The SteppIR antenna is a case in po
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:25:05 -0000
Hi Gerry, thanks for the reply. My question is: How much of your proposal DOES pertain to radio? This idea merely extends the wires that go from the guts of the rig to the control panel using the In
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:38:14 -0000
Hi Chris, I wouldn't think so. A callsign is a callsign and is part of your identity and thusly required by law; in Canada anyway. A signal report or contest exchange is not something that is legally