CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Claiming assistance when not actually assisted

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Claiming assistance when not actually assisted
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:44:36 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

I can't be both a boy and a girl at the same time. Something can't be both sweet and sour at the same time. East and west never meet.

But I CAN qualify equally for assisted and non-assisted by doing EXACTLY the same thing per the rules in either case. If I can legally choose to enter either category without doing anything different, why can't I qualify for both? Calling that ludicrous seems ludicrous to me.

Dave   AB7E



On 12/4/2015 2:50 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
While we're at it we could eliminate the distinction between boys and girls, 
the distinction between sweet and sour, and the distinction between east and 
west.


No, wait a minute those things are different from each other.  Combining them 
is a ludicrous notion.





Well, so are assisted and not-assisted different from each other, and combining 
them in a single category is a ludicrous notion also.






__73, de Hans, K0HB

"Just a Boy and His Radio"™




On Friday, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:53, Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>, wrote:

At this point I might start asking why not eliminate the distinction

between assisted and unassisted, and allow assistance for everyone?
_______________________________________________

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>