Mike,
It hardly matters at this point, but the MAQP ran for four years - in
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Although it feels like much longer.
73 Walter WO2U
former MAQP committee
On May 8, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Michael Clarson wrote:
>
> You may wish to correct Mike saying MAQP folded after 2 years. Was
> it 3 or 4 years?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
> Date: May 8, 2008 3:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox...
> To: kevin@rowett.org
> Cc: 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|