CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ONE radio, two operators??

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ONE radio, two operators??
From: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:38:53 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I really like that idea! Single "Operator" but multiple "Operators"

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 10/27/2014 3:18 AM, Oliver Dröse wrote:

Why not an Overlay category for "true" M/S like there is for SO Classic? Might be a worthwhile idea without needing to change the rules themselves, impact on records, a.s.o.

73, Olli - DH8BQA

Contest, DX & radio projects: http://www.dh8bqa.de


Am 26.10.2014 03:29, schrieb Paul Stoetzer:
I do wish there were a category for multiple operators taking shifts
operating a single radio. I have no problem with the M/S category, but it'd
be nice to have a "true" M/S category too.

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Friday, October 24, 2014, <k2qmf@juno.com> wrote:

Charlie K4VUD,

DUMD is in the eyes of the beholder!

Maybe us "second level pistols" enjoy operating M/S.
I'm sorry that you don't see the enjoyment in contesting!
See you on the WARC bands some day!  Don't hold your breath...

Swiss cheese, 73, Sal


On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:57:52 +0700 Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
writes:
Tnx KR2Q....  Now I remember why I thot the Multi One category is
dumb.  I
see that it does give the second op something to do in addition to
sleep,
but really kills off the idea of ONE op and ONE radio to which the
category
NAME implies.   The rule that I have finally paid attention to
appears to
be a cheap way for second level pistols to APPEAR to compete with
the first
level pistols.  More and more as I reawaken to the contest rules I
understand why the whole things are designed by big pistol ops and
why many
other operators opt out of contesting.  I also refer to rules which
make
huge Asia equal to EU.

Baloney, 73, Charly

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, <kr2q@optimum.net <javascript:;>>
wrote:
Charly,

Yes, you have read it correctly.  It has been this way for over 3
decades.
See my article in CQ from August 1981, where M/S is elaborated.
It was that way even before my article.  This article is a bit
dated, so
for
up to date information, see the 2 links below.

See: http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm

Also see the Multi-Single FAQ: http://www.cqww.com/rules_faq.htm
Scroll about half way down the above cited page.

GL!

de Doug KR2Q

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest



--
Charly, HS0ZCW
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/544a8a35684f3a352e09st04vuc
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
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



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

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