On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:02:28 -0600 Dale Martin <kg5u@hal-pc.org> writes:
>On Sunday, November 09, 1997 11:04 AM, Dick
>Dievendorff[SMTP:dieven@email.msn.com] wrote:
><snip>
> The idea
>that some of my mults will not be in the log disturbs me. What
>happens when the logs are checked and they find I have ten or twenty
>mults in my log for which there is no corresponding entry in the
>mults' logs? I'm hosed, right?
>
>Why not put them in the log. "0" (zero) in the points column may have
>a negative connotation but it is meaningful to me that it appear in
>your log when my call is in the callsign column. What's it going to
>hurt?
Why not? Well, every logged QSO represents a liability that you (I) made
a mistake. Mistakes cost penalty points. The risk/reward ratio is not
good!
>From a cold, rational perspective, the operator should simply not log
any zero pointers in contests like WPX. Sad, isn't it? This is the
fundamental reason why I oppose zero point Qs in WPX, for example.
(BTW: I do NOT erase zero pointers in my log. If I was a bit more
competitive, I would consider it, though!).
Of course, we are discussing SS, which has a ARRL-flavor to it, so
limiting participation to ARRL regions makes sense by its nature/history.
>>On the other hand, I entered four California QSO parties from
>England, and
>>do not recall having any California station question a QSO from
>England. I
>>assume that this is because of the superior operating skill, higher
>than
>>average intelligence, greater height, and generally good looks of all
>NCCC
>>members and even a few SCCC members.
>>
Errr, I cannot vouch for SCCC. Also, most of the NCCC "Bobs" would debate
your "greater height" comment. The rest seems valid!
73 de Bob, K6XX
-
---
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|