CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] All of the speculation here

To: kr2q@optimum.net, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] All of the speculation here
From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 06:51:17 -0500 (CDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 Doug,


One comment...


With regards to:
< snip >
SIDE NOTE
One of the things that strikes me, is that in his editorial, Randy used the 
word "recombine" as opposed to "combine."

That's right, assisted guys were originally included in with the non-assisted 
guys. Where was the outrage back then? Did that stop anybody from entering the 
contest? Nothing is stopping anyone from entering "their way," even if we went 
back to "one single operator category."
< snip >

If memory serves, the big argument at the time was whether or not the operators 
using technological Assistance should be classified as Single Op, or as 
Multi-Single entrants.  That was the Big Gray Area.  


So I personally would stop short of saying that there wasn't any... let's go 
with controversy rather than "outrage"... controversy about the entry 
classifications.  I would not want to imply that there wasn't any, since it was 
(in part) that very controversy that helped lead to the category split in the 
first place.


And I do agree with you on one other thing.  I'm actually enjoying, these days, 
operating in many contests without worrying about my entry category.  Makes 
many of them fun again, and when family matters come up (especially when one 
major contest coincides with my wife's birthday, which happens almost every 
year), I don't have to worry about keeping my priorities straight. Of course, 
if more of us did that, there'd be a lot less... controversy during the course 
of the year on this and other reflectors!


73, ron w3wn
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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