Hilarious. One of the better April 1 postings I've seen. Thanks Paul.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
To: "'CQ-Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] FW: [UK-CONTEST] CQ magazine to withdraw
contestsponsorship?
>
> I saw this on the UK reflector and thought I should share it here.
>
> Very unsettling indeed.
>
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Clive Whelan
> Sent: April 1, 2007 10:23
> To: uk-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] CQ magazine to withdraw contest sponsorship?
>
> I thought uk contesters might be interested in the following from a
> meeting
> between the CEO of CQ magazine and the general manager of ARRL, reported
> in
> the Washington Post. I am personally saddened by this news.
>
> " CQ magazine has sadly decided to withdraw support from all the contests
> it
> currently sponsors. As well as the huge amount of adjudication work
> undertaken by our band of willing volunteers, they have recently been the
> recipients of an increasing volume of complaints about conditions,
> sometimes
> virile, and occasionally abusive. In the current sunspot minimum
> conditions
> entrants around the world have typically been unable to make few if any
> QSOs
> on 28Mhz, and even 21Mhz has been very patchy. We are puzzled that the
> Amateur Radio community does not seem to realise that CQ magazine has
> little
> control over conditions, despite state of the art "ionosphere warming"
> equipment and antennas installed at Hicksville N.Y. However, it does seem
> that CQ magazine has become negatively associated with these poor
> conditions, and our circulation has suffered as a consequence. While other
> magazines might be happy with such a scenario, CQ magazine does not wish
> to
> be associated with anything except the highest quality , both of technical
> articles, but also the results of the contests it sponsors.
> Therefore, effective 4/1/2007 CQ magazine withdraws entirely from its
> contest sponsorship. We are anxious to point up that this is purely a
> matter
> of suspension rather than termination, and the board of CQ magazine will
> review this decision in 3-5 years time, and hopes to reinstate all events
> at
> this time, subject to sufficient solar activity.
> Finally, we envision a bright future for contesting in the long term"
>
> The full text of the conversation may be seen at :
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&de
> stination=login&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-liveonline&applicationURL=
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/liveonline/?nid%253Droll_discus
> s
>
> 73
>
>
> Clive
> GW3NJW
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|