that's my opinion. Maybe, as am not English native, I said that a bit to
artless. Maybe should say - it is not important and significant braking of
rules and does not give any advantage or change final score at all. Same as
running 1780W instead 1500W by rules.
Let keep a right direction and try to have contesting in fair play field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve London" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "CQ Contest" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX exchange - 4O3A decision
> 4O3A wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> After long and sometimes bothering discussion about this subject my final
>> opinion and decision is :
>> 1. 4O3A did not brake rules in any segments, at all. It is written that
>> have to exchange RS(T) plus serial number, and 4O3A did it on one simple,
>> shortest way possible. It is not written you have to say - Five Nine
>> clearly, or to shortcut or whatever. Having log lines with same data (
>> 59 ) confirm that both station understood RS and make logging with
>> value. Everybody who did contesting clearly understand that and many
>> contesters did the same. No problem with that.
> Yeah...that's just your opinion, Ranko. Let no one reading this be
> confused that
> what you state is a fact, endorsed by the WPX CC.
>> 2. 4O3A did more fairly than most of competitors broadcasting whole
>> in real time. It was done with goal to make contesting more open, and to
>> help beginners to learn more quickly and easily
> Your broadcasting has nothing to do with this. Go back and reread my
> e-mail that started this thread. You were not the only callsign mentioned
> in the
> e-mail. Anyone who is loud and semi-competent should expect to be
>> But when I take the center stage in this way, I have to operate perfectly
>> because will be a role model for those who are listening myself. This is
>> main point.
> This is the first correct and honorable statement you have made. Excellent
> Steve, N2IC
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list