CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Meta-debate

To: "Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Meta-debate
From: "Rich K2WR" <k2wr@njdxa.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:22:14 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
As some with interests in communication in general, beyond ham radio 
contesting, may have noticed, my (infrequent) comments have tended to focus on 
the debate about the debate, i.e. the "metadebate", rather than the debate 
itself.  Responses have tended to be private, and generally too subtle for 
general release (by apparent sound judgement of those responding).

However, I'd like to call attention to the following declaration.  Most will 
recognize it:

"Anyone that believes otherwise is a disgrace to amateur radio. PERIOD!"

So, taken literally, someone may fall into the disgrace category, presumably 
deserving of residence in the 5th or 6th level of Inferno, based on a belief.  
It's shocking to imagine that someone I respect and regard as a credit to 
amateur radio might instead be a disgrace based on a belief that hasn't even 
been expressed!

May I request a moratorium on similar pronouncements?  I don't have a right to 
demand anything.  It is just a request.  Such statements are extreme, dogmatic, 
grandiose, inflexible, and display a lack of desire to consider alternate views 
(including, presumably, this one).

I'm just seeking to elevate the level of civility of the debate.  That's all.

Rich K2WR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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