I'm not sure I've ever seen righteous indignation carried to such
ridiculously unwarranted extremes on such a relatively minor issue, and
directed toward such an undeserving crew of volunteers. Somebody
really, really, really, really, really needs to get a life.
"too foul and ungentlemanly to describe" ???? Give me a break.
Is there an April Fool's Day equivalent in July that I don't know about?
Dave AB7E
Warren C. Stankiewicz wrote:
> If the CQ Committee is using a program paradigm
> which is inherently flawed, and inherently will always have flaws, then this
> concept of "checking every single log" vs "checking the 'comptetitors' for
> fairness and accuracy', and verifying the veracity of their results" has
> gotten far too out of balance, and the organizers have far lost sight of
> their purpose, and raison d'etre.
>
> I don't buy this explanation of "well, it didn't affect the overall
> results."
>
> If you don't have the resources to check every single log correctly, and
> correct for errors, then don't do it. To penalize some incorrectly is to
> cast aspersions on the intergrity of the entire process in ways too foul and
> ungentlemanly to describe in a forum such as this.
>
> I implore the CQ Contest Committee, and those to whom it answers, to rethink
> this clearly ill-conceived and poory executed process to something more
> closely representing a clear rationality towards all operators.
>
> With malice towards none, but still, great outrage and umbrage,
>
> Warren C. Stankiewicz, NF1J/K6KFC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|