In a message dated 1/7/2007 5:26:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
w2ev@yahoo.com writes:
You seem to be taking this much too personally, Tree. The issue has nothing
to do with the *excellent* work that BARC does (and continues to do). It
simply happens that BARC's Stu Perry event was the one that was referenced as
an example of the problem with (1) parsing on "white space" rather than
field-position and (2) requiring 599 reports when RST is not exchanged. I've
run
across similar issues with other (non BARC) events, too (as I said before).
Let's instead, focus on the issue without regard as to what the examples
may be. The issue is that of *requiring* electronic submitters to send a log
that includes artificial or synthesized information.
Why is that a bad idea? Because one never knows what future decisions are
made based on historic data. There are those that say, "No data is better
than bad data". In this case, packing a log wit 599's is outright "make
believe" data.
Even so, it is BARC's (EXCELLENT) event. BARC will do what they need to in
order to make the job easier for themselves (and who can blame them?) I am
simply offering a point of view that was not previously considered and stand
by my plea that robot writers review their code to assure that data is parsed
by column so as to avoid pitfalls as discussed in this thread.
In the mean time...thank you BARC for a v-e-r-y fun contest!
Ev, W2EV
I just have to finally weigh in on this. Ev, it seems to me that you are
making an issue out of a non-issue, and should give it a rest.
We all know that the RST system, and especially exchanging 59 or 599 in a
contest is essentially meaningless. Who cares about signal report data in
contest files, anyway? Certainly not me, and it ain't worth the bandwidth or
brain cells to harp on it.
FWIW, and nothing personal.
73, Geo...k5kg
George Wagner, K5KG
941-312-9420
941-400-1960 cell
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|