Not speaking on Maarten's behalf, but a meaningless discussion is one where the assertion being made is wrong, pointless, or has been proved wrong several times, and/or it's the same old tired stuff.
Romeo, Thanks for sharing those links. Coincidentally, today (21 November 2010) is the CQWW SSB log submission deadline. 73, Bob W5OV --Original Message-- From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mai
And, since he's (N4 Baked Potato) been doing this for decades, it's expected rather than an issue. Since SS is primarily a "domestic" contest, such stuff is effective. I still remember things like "K
It has to do with you installing something outside of your own property solely for your own use. This sort of thing is expressly forbidden in the rules. "Public" systems like this that anyone can con
Dave, The pertinent part is: 3. All transmitters and receivers used by the entrant must be located within a single 500-meter diameter circle or within the property limits of the station licensee?s ad
The focus of this discussion has been directed at the least important part of the announcement. The most important part is: *Remote skimmers (beyond the 500m station circle) are *not permitted for an
Dave, What "private" means *in this context* is not subject to debate. It means anything deployed outside the 500m circle for the benefit of one station only. Assuming that whatever you are doing is
Again, 3. All transmitters and receivers used by the entrant must be located within a single 500-meter diameter circle or within the property limits of the station licensee?s address, whichever is gr
Mark, I am a member of the CQWW Committee. Bob W5OV _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-c
Dave, I'm afraid I am not capable of communicating with you. I apologize for my verbal inadequacies. 73, Bob W5OV _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@co
Dave, You're persistent, though misguided. There's really nothing new here. What was forbidden before is still forbidden. What was allowed before is still allowed. As has been said before, it's just
OK Art, so let me see if I understand you correctly... You're submitting your log, with some QSOS intentionally removed, because someone who did not respond how you wanted them to, in order to intent
Art, I'm glad this was not as simple as it appeared in your original post. Given what you said, he may not have logged you at all since you heard no confirmation from "4Q2OM". In this scenario, I thi
George is, of course, 100% correct. I also can agree with Al - but only from a purely philosophical perspective; that being - little of this matters in the grand scheme of life. However, we are talki
Hans, I think you need to get a grip. We're talking in the abstract about how to properly send an exchange here - on this email reflector - which I obviously need to point out, is focused on... * con
The link included below is to one of the Acom dealers in the U.S. The actual Acom website is: http://www.acom-bg.com/ 73, Bob W5OV --Original Message-- From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto
This is how I also understand the rule, now that it has been "clarified" from the way it originally appeared to only allow for "code readers" - I imagine to help those who might be "code-challenged".
Tod, I generally agree with your suggestions. I do, however, think that VE3EJ's suggestion is completely valid once we recognize and agree what we're talking about and stop "splitting hairs". Your de
Dave, The issue is not how the rules are written; it is having a common understanding of what an unassisted single operator is. I think that most of us do share that understanding and to quote our fr
Jim, I think what you did was admirable, and appropriate. I would rather have someone think they can't use skimmer at all than to think they might be able to use any function is might be capable of.