CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:32:10 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> I believe the phrase does include things "like local Skimmer" and the
>> "etc" drives it home.  To me the definition clearly includes Skimmer.
>
> Why would et cetera drive anything home?

I can't answer for whether the writer of the rule used the correct elements 
of style.  However, dictionaries define the word "etcetera" as:

"a number of other things or persons unspecified."

Since Skimmer is similar to the other things in the list:

operating arrangements involving other individuals
DX-alerting nets
packet
Internet

use of etcetera in this case supports the interpretation that Skimmer could 
be included in the list of things that are not permitted without being 
specified, and that the author of the rule may have intended to include 
theretofore uninvented technologies.

I would love to hear from the author of the rule.  It would bring a key 
element to this discussion.

Mark, N5OT


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

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