I agree with Hans. Hands down.
The Q is made, and anything after that is, in my opinion, wrong.
But, now having said that, what about the old days--when you sat all Monday
evening, doing dupe sheets. Was this right?
73- Chuck KI9A
A boy, a radio, and a computer
In a message dated 12/8/2008 8:29:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kzerohb@gmail.com writes:
If it happens in "real time/heat of battle" --- ie., two guys at a M/M
listening in parallel headsets and "deciding" seems perfectly acceptable to
me.
Flagging the QSO for later leisurely playback, review, and correction
(inside or outside the contest period) is neither reasonable,
sportsmanlike, nor acceptable.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Just a boy and his radio
--------------------------------------------------
From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:00 PM
To: <k1ep.list@gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>; <wc1m@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self help during contest
> I don't think it is a loop-hole at all. Multi-ops, as far as I know, have
> ALWAYS had the
> ability and option to have more than one op per operating frequency. In
> other words,
> if N2AA is running on 7001, it was not uncommon to have two ops listening
> to 7001.
>
> I know that I did that when I was M/M. It was not uncommon for each of
> the two ops to
> either share the callsign that "they" copied (and it was always amazing to
> me how two
> guys would copy separate stations), or they could "help" each other to get
> a single callsign
> right. When the pile up is that big, there are plenty of calls to copy
> and having two heads
> copying just keeps things boiling at a higher rate.
>
> I haven't done M/M in about 20 years, but isn't this still a reasonable
> practice for multi-ops?
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed K1EP
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2008 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] self help during contest
> To: wc1m@msn.com, kr2q@optimum.net, cq-contest@contesting.com
>
>> So in that vain, in a MM, you could a non-operator as a
>> "reviewer". He or she would review the recorded audio for any
>> questionable QSO that was flagged by an op. The op could
>> continue to
>> op and the reviewer would make any corrections to the log. As
>> long
>> as it takes place during the 48 hours, it would be legal. I am
>> NOT
>> suggesting this be done, but it is a "loophole" within the rules.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|