On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:13, Bill Turner wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:53:14 -0600, "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In that string of events, who's to say it's the contester at fault? How do
> >we know it wasn't the non-contester who just planted himself there?
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> It depends. The guy who "just took it over" may have propagation to an
> area the previous guys did not. It behooves him to listen carefully
> before taking it over, but often he does not.
In these cases it wasn't propagation - usually it was on 80 meters and
both the CQer and the guy I'd just worked were plenty loud. There was
no non-contester involved. (though I'm sure some of these guys *did*
stomp on non-contest activity somewhere)
You: W9WI VE4XT 234 KELLY MB
Me: VE4XT 123 DOUG TN W9WI
You: R
3rd guy: CQ NA WB9NME
> I believe the QSY rule does more harm than good. It's time for it to
> go.
Yikes, no! I've nothing against the NAQP (really love it) but we really
don't need two more NAQPs just a few weeks after the first set!
The QSY rule is most of what makes Sprint Sprint. Getting rid of it to
cure liddish behavior is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|