CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Web Poll (Signal reports yes/no)

To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Web Poll (Signal reports yes/no)
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:30:01 +0100
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim George" <n3bb@mindspring.com>

> It might be a silly rule, but it is a rule. As long as
> it is stated as a rule it should be complied with.

Some rules, as with some laws, lapse - even though they
are still on the books.

The acid test of any rule is to publicly break it, then
invite the authorities to penalise you or to admit the
rule is no longer in force.

It is "silly" to adhere to a "rule" that has long lapsed.
No one gets penalised in WPX for logging an "incorrect"
RST.  It is not cross-checked, for the simple reason that
there's nothing of value to check.

If no one is penalised this year, we will know for certain
that the rule is a lapsed rule in WPX.  Then, those who
prefer to mindlessly repeat 59(9) in every QSO can continue
to mindlessly repeat 59(9) in every QSO.  The rest of us
can, with a clear conscience, omit it.

73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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