CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment

To: 'Bill Tippett' <btippett@alum.mit.edu>, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment
From: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:13:14 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Bill,

You are correct.  If skimmer is allowed for unassisted, then by simple
extension, packet is allowed for unassisted as I see it.

Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Tippett
Sent: June 11, 2008 8:57 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment

I don't really like any of these alternatives.  Maybe
I'll just cheat and use Packet but claim Unassisted since it will
be virtually impossible to detect the difference with Skimmer, if
it's allowed for Unassisted.  It might be poetic justice to scam
the Skimmers!  :-)

                                         73,  Bill  W4ZV


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

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