CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
From: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:16:27 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Lettuce awl go back to coherer receivers, sp*rk gap transmitters, and logs on slate written by hand using chalk.

We don't need all this fancy "supposedly better" technoloigy, What was good for Marconi should be good enough for us all.

Yes, and our Constitution says "The majority rules, the minorities have no rights nor privileges."

72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of gthe time

On 4/5/2016 1:19 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
Ditto the KD4D post.

Why don't we let the unassisted operators decide whether the concern of 
assisted ops invading our category is worth eliminating it over the concern?

No reason to merge the 2 categories and then do an overlay.  Just leave it the 
way it is and clarify reasonable questions like Braco's question.

By the way, do to great efforts of the organizations and contest managers, doesn't the 
ARRL and CQ contests represent something like 75%+ of all the contest Qs made in a year?  
Why exactly should this majority follow the "rest of the world" minority?  Just 
sayin.

Ed  N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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