Never heard of the quaint old-fashioned concept of "trust but verify", or "doveryai, no proveryai"? I suppose that's "crap" too? 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Cont
<snip> There is unfairness because there is nothing special about contesting that makes it different, in this respect, from other competitive activities. Most competitive activities are closely regul
The difference between Assisted and Non-Assisted has two components - the use of either or both changes a single-op enrty from Non-Assisted to Assisted. The first is the use of spotting nets. Why? Be
Yes, just as there should be a penalty (on ARRL) for not including the callsign as a Cabrillo exchange element, between the precedence and the check. Why encourage redundancy in contest exchanges? I
You have to look slightly further. The official Cabrillo specifications for SS logs do not reflect the ARRL's rules - callsigns appear once only in Cabrillo QSO records. http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabr
It seems that Hans cannot accept that anyone outside the USA might be qualified to comment on SS. Wrong - electronic logs submitted in any format other than the specified Cabrillo format are rejected
This is the perennial circular argument in support of the "do nothing" option. The rules are what they are, and you must do it because it's in the rules .... And no mention of the many golf rules tha
The problem is recent, and getting worse. It stems from those stations assuming everyone else knows their call from spots or the RBN. For as long as they get a steady stream of callers, they have no
CQWW is a callsign-copying contest - no more and no less. For CQWW, zones (whether Sent or Received) are not cross-checked - if only, as KR2Q suggests, because it would be grossly unfair to do so. Th
The rules specify what elements entrants are obliged to exchange on-air. They do not indicate what happens to these exchange elements during log checking. RST and Zone are not checked in CQWW, but ca
Jim has a point, but my point is pretty simple too. Any rule which requires contesters to exchange meaningless or redundant information is foolish - it is effectively a handicap on all entrants. If w
In the ARRL Contest Update for April 11, 2012 we read Radio Arcala team member Toni OH2UA was at the controls of CQ8X for a serious contest operation in the Azores for WPX SSB. That's not unusual. Wh
Hans has provided an excellent example of a leading question. Not to worry. The length of the mic and speaker cables is irrelevant, once it exceeds the usual limit (1km diameter) for contest stations
That's generous of Mike, but I started the Remote Control thread and I believe he will find direct answers to many of his questions in my original post. http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-conte
Agreed SSB does not replace amateur-band RF in the signal path between the operators. It is the operators who exchange serials, or whatever is required - not the stations. VHF-spotting nets do not re
W5OV quoted EI5DI Since many people are getting tired of this thread, I'll keep this short. However, it's mildly amusing to me that, having first quoted my actual words, W5OV goes on to misquote them
It seems to me that, when QSO parties overlap, each would get more entries if there was a common QSO format, and unique county/state identifiers. Logging, and log submission, would be simplified - ju
It seems to me that when you use the internet to find, facilitate or make contest QSOs, then what you're not is single-op unassisted. A separate issue - local skimmers don't need the internet, but th
<snip> The "new technology" issue has been dealt with many times. As in all competitive events, new technologies are banned when the effects of using them are considered (by the organisers) to be dis
This is an admirable initiative in some ways. How could any reasonable fair-minded person not sign up? I can't help feeling it may be premature and irrelevant. It appears to assume that ALL of the ru