CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox...

To: kevin@rowett.org
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox...
From: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Reply-to: mjc5@psu.edu
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 15:29:31 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 22:03 -0700, Kevin Rowett wrote:

> Regional parties is perhaps a better overall solution to this problem.
> We've seen the growth of 7QP, NEQP, and perhaps the original W6 CQP
> could be considered regional.

And yet the MAQP folded after 2 years.

> Some parties support the use of a serial number, some don't.  Would we require
> everyone to go to the exact same format?

how are we going to require State QSO parties to do anything, Kevin?
Massive boycott or something? not participate because a party requires a
checkable exchange instead of 599 for all exchanges?

It's all voluntary. I have some people who refuse to participate in
PAQSO because we require a mailed summary sheet. That is their right.

I like the differences.

        - 73 de Mike N3LI -

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

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