In the United States there are many Interstate highways that have a posted
Speed limit of 75 miles per hour.
When one drives at the 75 mile per hour limit on those highways it is not
uncommon to be passed by many other drivers who are going faster than you
are driving.
If we [the American People] wanted to be certain that no one drove faster
than the posted limit of 75 miles per hour we would need to spend a
substantial amount of money on 'enforcement' people and processes. Probably
even more than we spend on the Afghanistan conflict today.
In a rare bit of reasonable thinking on our part we collectively have
decided that is not the way we want to spend our tax dollars. As a result we
must accept that a substantial fraction of the drivers on those highways
will not be following the 'rules'. If it really bothers us that others do
not follow the rules we have the option of driving on a different road
[probably at a lower speed]. But most of us continue to drive on the
Interstate highways because our personal satisfaction for doing so outweighs
our dissatisfaction with those who do not choose to follow the 'rules'
Is contesting any different? Would we collectively choose to provide the
necessary funds to assure enforcement of the 'rules'? Most likely not. We
are then left with the choice of contesting and accepting that some number
of others will not be observing the rules or taking a different road.
This thread always seems to end at the same place. I wonder if other have
noticed that too?
Tod, K0TO
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|