[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread

To: "'David Kopacz'" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread
From: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:24:02 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that
you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other
sponsor) you decide that you are willing to abide by the RULES that the
contest sponsor has printed...plain and simple. 

You have the options...you are in the driver's seat...and oh, by the
way...no one is taking away ANY of your rights.

If YOU decide you don't like the rules as stated by the sponsor then you
have options:

1.  You can still 'play' in the contest, maybe even inviting some top notch
contesters who understand IN ADVANCE that you are not going to submit a log
for competitive scoring because you disagree with the rules.
2.  You can choose to submit your log as a 'check' log
3.  You can choose NOT to enter the contest.

You chose to build 6Y1V. ARRL and CQWW did not force you to build the
station, just like they do not force you to enter the contest. YOU make that

You also have the choice to develop and sponsor your own contest that does
not involve those rules that you dislike.

Stop with the "it's my intellectual property argument"...it doesn't wash.
AND, as stated before no one is forcing you to submit your log. If you want
a seat at the big table then you have to play by the rules.

As for what is it going to cost to send judges out to inspect stations and
who will they send...what do you care? The cost doesn't come from you or any
other participant (unless and until the sponsors decide to charge an entry
fee to cover the costs, at which point you STILL have the control because
YOU STILL have the choice.) and the reality is that the number of
inspections or POTENTIAL inspections' will probably be less than 20-30.

So, hope to see you in the WW this fall, and ARRL in the spring, always nice
to have the competition when we're operating in the Caribbean...but, if your
station is not in the contests, well that is your choice. 


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Kopacz
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:14 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread

I'm not hijacking the thread. The underlying core of both subjects are
the same.

Open logs AND live station inspections are BOTH part of the same course
of direction being taken by the CQWW contest committee to quell
suspicions of cheating.

Keeping the two subjects separated only serves to isolate the
incremental changes of stripping away an amateur's privacy.

I'm not going to let that happen, because once they discover it's too
expensive to send people to all the cheaters stations <not to mention
the fact these inspectors can no longer  operate themselves> they are
going to force us to have live cameras in our stations/homes for all to

In our case, that can't happen because our Internet is so unreliable
we're lucky to keep packet up and running. The 6Y1V station is finally
competitive in the M2 category of CQWW despite the 1 point deficit for
North American Q's. It's likely someone will eventually suspect us of
cheating, especially if we ever win!

David KY1V/6Y1V

Stop it !

We had the open logs discussion ad nauseum less than a year ago !

Please, no more hijacking of threads !

Steve, N2IC

Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
>> It's BS. Open logs are BS.
> Really?  I believe open logs are one of the most welcome changes
> in recent years. 
>> If you want to see my logs, ask...perhaps
>> I'll let you.
> Thanks, but we don't need to ask.  When you enter CQWW your
> logs are on the web for everyone to see.
>> Think about it...if "THEY" weren't "THEMSELVES" participants
>> in the very same contest for which "THEY" intend to enforce
>> "THEIR" silly catch the cheater rules, none of this would
>> matter!
> Looks like paranoia to me.  THEY are out to get someone :-)
>> Personally, I don't think there's that much cheating going on.
> Personally, I think there is that much cheating going on, and
> I welcome station inspections and open logs.
>> Perhaps it is more likely that there are a lot of people that
>> are paranoid, delusional and can't quite figure out why they
>> are getting beat, so they conclude that everyone else must be
>> cheating. 
> Yes, that's me.  Paranoid, delusional and a poor loser :-)
>> As a "NON CHEATER", I do not advocate the use of home invasions
> Ah - the power of paranoia, to make station inspections become
> home invasions.
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09

CQ-Contest mailing list

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