Hans, You need to broaden your perspective a little. Firstly, I think that anyone who spends a great deal of time looking at these public documents may want to consider other activities that are more
Ron, Once again, you have offered no explanation of WHY your log should not be public. You can object all you want, but it would be a whole lot more effective if you had some reason why your log shou
Ron, It seems that you just don't want to understand that submitted LOGS ARE PUBLIC by rule. So the "why you should" is simply "because it is the rule". You also do not recognize that when you submit
Unnecessary? Really? The rule is in place to assure that two signals cannot occur simultaneously on a band in compliance with the rules. Dueling CQ's is already forbidden in the rules for many reason
Looking at recent contest results, we have found that "completely unenforceable" is not true in the case of both CQWW and the RDXC for multiple signals per band. Violation of the one transmitter at a
I think it is well known that the "hand signal method" does not PREVENT both radios from transmitting at the same time. The new rule requires a solution that PREVENTS the two radios from transmittin
Francisco, While I am certain that the ARRL told you that the internal CT licensing issue you raised was something they could not do anything about, I am even more certain that they did not tell you
Steve, Let's face it; the League is far too diplomatic to communicate such a message to anyone. That said, and not knowing the specific circumstances, I'm going to stick with supporting whatever the
Chris, What power cheating are you alleging? What contest? By who? What power were they running? How do you know? Can it be proven? How? We need some good investigative reporting on this subject. Ano
Jeff, Part of the agreement when they signed up for the CAC is to keep private discussions private. If they didn't agree with it, then they should not have signed on. Whether we think all of their di
Ed, While I understand the desire here, but the point is that this is a committee. The committee has to do its job and having the public involved in debating every idea or opinion expressed in their
Try this: The reason there is a misunderstanding is because we try to pin down what assisted means, when simply it means "not single op". So what does single op mean? It's where one operator locates
Joe, You've lost the focus on what single operator means. It means that one operator *locates AND identifies* every callsign that he puts in his log. No machine does it for him (local or remote makes
No, a person bringing you food is not involved in locating or identifying callsigns you put in your log as a single operator. Brings food: NOT ASSISTED. --Original Message-- From: cq-contest-bounces@
Graham, There are methods to do this, but it is not likely that the contest sponsor will provide specific details of how this is done as it would offer hints on how to get around it. Suffice it to sa
Actually, it is. You have to have both locating AND identifying components performed by the operator. Of course, with digital modes, a decoder (a machine of some sort) is required as very few operato
The tiresome argument of "it can't be enforced" does not preclude the establishment of a rule. The entrants can either choose to abide by the rules or not. We have many rules that can't be policed -
about to ask, so let's take the situations below and please tell me whether or not you would consider them single op. assisted or single op unassisted. Op A is in the SOABHP category. He is planning
Peter, We're not discussing those with physical challenges such as you are mentioning nor are the rules written to address these sorts of exceptions. The contest is as follows: (from cqww.com) CQ WW
Dupes are not penalized - you just don't get any credit for the second QSO! _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.c