You knowingly submitted ineligible & possibly fradulent cards to the card checkers to try and fool them? You know what... never mind. I'm not rehashing the same responses... again. The bottom line is
I know of no issues to date with someone trying to weasel their way into a QSL card for someone else's QSO with a published contest log... but then, how many people knew until recently that CQ was pu
Chuck, You're still confused? OK. Let's try it this way. W3WH (who doesn't live that far from me) worked VP6DX on 12 meters. (Not a contest QSO, incidently!) I didn't. With an open log, it is child's
'Because you must be hiding something. Otherwise, why would you hide it?' (I hate that thinking) I think this is what one can classify as a "Catch-22." It's like the police officer who stops you for
...but not if I didn't know until well after the fact, Igor. (Especially since Bill worked the guys on Ducie on 12 meters while I was at work & nowhere near a rig!) And I can argue the other side of
Marty, Now I'm confused. The question was posed inquiring as to valid reasons why one wouldn't post an entire log on the internet. I gave a hypothetical answer based on the presumption that long afte
That's what I get for not checking that myself. I stand corrected, and I thank you for it Joe. 73 The ARRL/DXCC rules do not say that. The rule in its entirety is: < snip > __________________________
So I have been informed, Tom. That's what I get for not paying attention to the details, as I am at present merely a casual operator in most of the CQ contests (not having a shack for 3 years will do
Pete, Where are you getting the 20M SoftRock SDR kits from? I went looking online this morning (we were discussing projects this morning at the first meeting of the new WPA QRP Club) and I didn't com
Oh? Really? So what you're telling us is that anyone running an older radio (like a Ten Tec Corsair, or a Drake TR4C-Sherwood, or for that matter any radio that doesn't have a computer interface) can
And once again, I strongly object to the notion that we be required to record our operation on the chance that we might be a top competitor. Sorry Scott, but IMHO, this suggestion creates as many or
C'mon Dick. You're being silly... and trvializing the point. The items you mention are all operating aids that make the operator more effcient so that he can concentrate on, well, operating. Having s
The "assisted" category always referred to operators receiving information indirectly from other operators via the packet cluster or similar networks. There are many forms of "assistance" to an opera
I was referring to how we commonly refer to the "assisted" category, not the letter of the rules of one or more particular contests. And if we're really going to split hairs between "packet cluster o
I would say that there's a big difference -- in intent -- between: -- An amateur who chooses the location for a remote station based on the specifics of that location (to take advantage of a farm for
Denis has a point about the latency issue. Of those concerned about the issue, let me ask... how many have actually operated a remote station? KQ3DX set up one of his rigs (I believe his Omni VI) via
Here's a wild idea... Assuming for the sake of argument that the current "general contest" rule(s) regarding the physical station is outdated... that is to say, the "500 foot circle or within the pro
So what you're saying is that because it would be "unfair" to let someone sit at home and operate a remote station in a DX entity in a contest, when they have the means and ability to actually travel
Hi Mike, You make some very good points. And you're absolutely correct that experimental stations should be permitted. I also hadn't considered temporary medical conditions, like broken bones in any
I remember the 160 SSB contest. Somehow managed to get my inverted "L" to function on 160 that weekend, something I was never able to do again. Came home from work on Friday night, stayed up all nigh