CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>,Mark Beckwith <n5ot@n5ot.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:08:11 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Mike, K1MK wrote:> If we do not presume competence on the part of the writer as 
to how 
> the rules were constructed and do not rely upon standard usage when 
> reading the rules, then the rules have no objective meaning.
> 
> All we have to work with are the words of the rules. We cannot treat 
> the rules as if they were written by Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty 
> ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- 
> neither more nor less.").

This is EXACTLY why I can't fathom how anyone could argue that the WW rule "DX 
Alerting assistance of 
any kind..." is ambiguous.

73, kelly
ve4xt

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

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