>I'm the guy who started this thread and I'm still waiting, either publicly
or privately, for someone to explain what was wrong with the old system.
and
>I'm sorry all I see is changing the rules for the sake of changing the
rules.
Maybe someone can invite a high 'mukity-muck' from NCCC to enlighten us.
While you seem to be attempting to create a debate, many CaQP participants
like me have the lingering memory of a great contest. Yes, handling the new
abbreviations was a challenge, likely slowing the QSO rate a bit. However,
the stations I contacted surely seemed to be having a lot of fun!
73, Keith NM5G
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of N7MAL
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:56 PM
To: Ron Notarius W3WN; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules)
I'm the guy who started this thread and I'm still waiting, either publicly
or privately, for someone to explain what was wrong with the old system.
When something works so well for more than 20 years I think it should become
the standard. I was asked this question 5 times in private responses: How
does SDIE relate to San Diego or LASS relate to Los Angeles.?. Recently
there was a brand, shiny, new contest, 7QP, which used 3 letter
abbreviations and there were no problems. 7QP was a multi-state QSO party.
I don't see this as advancing contesting or making it easier for newcomers.
I'm sorry all I see is changing the rules for the sake of changing the
rules.
Maybe someone can invite a high 'mukity-muck' from NCCC to enlighten us.
73
c.c. NCCC
MAL
N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
[snip]
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|