[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY
From: steve.root@culligan4water.com
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:54:23 +0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>There is a critical mass of activity that must exist for any contest to be 
>worthwhile. By assembling all the W1s or W7s into one contest, that mass can 
>be achieved. W2 and W0 would seem to be candidates to do this. W6 by default 
>already has. W3, W4, W5, W8, and W9 already have several decent parties by 
>individual states.

The folks behind the Minnesota QSO Party put in a lot of effort and based on 
the results of the last few years they've done a very good job. Minnesota 
contesters look at the MNQP as one of the very rare instances when we don't get 
victimized by geography and propagation. The whole thing would fall apart if we 
were lumped back in with CO or MO. They used to have a Zero District QSO Party 
years ago and it disappeared.
I think the idea of contest software that would handle simultaneous QSO parties 
is an excellent idea. It would be great if you could support the other guy's 
QSO party while working your own.
73 Steve K0SR 

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>