Doug,
As you say "ostensibly". I was the author of the Phone SS writeups in
QST and on the web. While I don't do the log checking, nor do I set ARRL
policy, I do feel responsibility for "getting it right". The first time
I heard of this issue was the posting by Wes, AC8JF, on Friday, June 19.
I immediately forwarded it to Matt, W1MSW, the ARRL HQ contest branch
manager. Let's wait for a reply from him before we condemn the entire ARRL.
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 06/22/2015 05:52 AM, kr2q@optimum.net wrote:
This is a pitiful comment, ostensibly made by the ARRL "contact person."
This shows complete disregard for their customers and also shows that they
don't care about it.
ARRL made a big deal out of it (100 year anniversary), so they should have
modified the LC
to account for that.
And "everyone" was not affected the same way...only those poor souls who need
W1AW/5 for a
sweep and were unlucky enough to also work W1AW/1.
Sounds like the LC author(s) and/or ARRL were just too lazy to do the right
thing. Acknowledging
the mistake and then doing nothing about it is clearly a poor decision. That
action would not stand in
the business world where customers actually matter.
How unfortunate.
de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
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
|