And on and on with this nonsense. The question of open UBN's has morphed
into open logs. Obviously two different topics.
If anyone chooses to post their UBN here, or elsewhere, obviously their
prerogative. Should anyone demand same? I think not. (BTW, who are these
guys who have ordained themselves to rule so?)
Interesting enough, the subject line is still KR2Q and RX1CQ, and I've seen
zero comment from either.
Perhaps they both will "want" to post their respective UBN's here, and we
can move on to some intelligent conversations? If not, that's OK too.
Thank you.
Vy 73,
Jim Neiger N6TJ
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:27 AM
To: "'Ron Notarius W3WN'" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ
> Ron,
>
> It seems that you just don't want to understand that submitted LOGS ARE
> PUBLIC by rule. So the "why you should" is simply "because it is the
> rule".
> You also do not recognize that when you submit your log, you agree to make
> your log public or you don't submit it. You are given the opportunity to
> say
> no and not submit your log so I am not sure what you're claiming about
> being
> *forced*. No one forces you to submit a log.
>
> You say:
>
> "I find it interesting that you challenge me to explain why my log should
> not be made public, yet continually refuse to explain why I should".
>
> What you are doing in asking me to explain why the rule should be in place
> is considered a logical fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof".
>
> You are attempting to shift the burden of proof for your challenge of the
> status quo (existing rules) to me in order to avoid offering valid support
> for your assertion.
>
> (Google "shifting the burden of proof" for more on this logical fallacy.
> One
> concise reference is:
> http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm )
>
> The rules are what they are. Tell me why they should be different. You
> state
> emphatically that it is your opinion, but that's all. Tell me *why*.
>
> Bob W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:28 PM
> To: 'Bob Naumann'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ
>
> I find it interesting that you challenge me to explain why my log should
> not
> be made public, yet continually refuse to explain why I should.
>
> So you get to refute my reasons, but refuse to permit me the same
> courtesy.
> Sorry; cuts both ways.
>
> Frankly, what we don't seem to agree on is that I have a firm belief in
> personal privacy... that I have the right to refuse to unconditionally
> refuse to reveal information without good cause. Call it a form of
> "considered innocent until proven guilty." It would appear that you
> believe
> that I have no such right, that the mere fact that I operate mandates that
> I
> must accede to any demands... a form of "considered guilty until proven
> innocent."
>
> Mandating that the submitted log must be made public, IMHO, should not and
> should never be a condition of entry. That is only a very recent
> development, in the history of the major contests. And if that mandate,
> with no other options, simply means all or nothing... with no debate, no
> middle ground, no other options... then you force me out. Yes, I feel
> that
> strongly about it.
>
> And you STILL haven't answered the key question, from an earlier email.
> Funny, no one ever seems to answer that.
>
> If making logs public is such a good thing (which I don't necessarily
> concede), why must it be mandated? Why can't I simply be asked? Why not
> that simple courtesy?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Naumann [mailto:W5OV@W5OV.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:53 PM
> To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ
>
> Ron,
>
> Once again, you have offered no explanation of WHY your log should not be
> public.
>
> You can object all you want, but it would be a whole lot more effective if
> you had some reason why your log should not be public. You just having
> that
> as an opinion is not a reason for why.
>
> Tell me why you object? What is private about your contest log data? What
> difference does it make if it is public?
>
> Making your log public is a condition of entry. In essence, they're asking
> you if it's OK to make your log public, and you're saying no by not
> submitting it.
>
> I don't see what the issue is - at all.
>
> Sorry.
>
> 73,
>
> -Bob W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:20 PM
> To: w5ov@w5ov.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ
>
> Re: "I have found in nearly 40 years of playing this game that the top
> competitors have always shared their information with each other and
> anyone else who asked. No one should object because no one should have
> anything to hide."
>
> 1. So if all anyone has to do is ask, WHY are you demanding that my log
> be
> made open to the public WITHOUT ASKING?
>
> 2. Why do you presume that someone is hiding something because they
> prefer
> not to open their logs to the public, regardless of what their reasons may
> be?
>
> I really dislike this assertion that nobody "should" object. No
> dissension
> at all is permitted? Really?
>
> When people, even if it is a minority, are being forced to do something
> and
> they are not even allowed to object, we have a real problem.
>
> And don't tell me that we have the option to not send in logs. I've
> already
> been told by one major contest organizer that since I don't turn in logs
> to
> his contest (because of my objection to open logs, and to my being told
> that
> my only option is to not send them in), I have forfeited my right to
> comment
> on anything involving his contest... including the open logs issue. So my
> options seem to be agree & shut up, or boycott & shut up, but either way,
> my
> concerns are disregarded. Nice.
>
> 73
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|