Mike:
Given the lack of context (spam filter, suggestion kind of out of "Left
Field") I interpreted it as a snark, and replied in kind. (Confession, I
enjoy snark) .. he emailed me, and made it clear he was serious, so I did
apologize directly for the misinterpretation. The reason for my
overreaction was my surprise at seeing what appeared to be a troll on this
list. I guess a reminder of what "assume" can mean.
73
Steve KL7SB
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 5:59 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] New Category Suggestion
I understand the point that NN4X was making. Do people need to be arseholes
when they don't necessarily agree?
I thought the purpose of this reflector was to discuss and debate ideas,
concepts, etc. I didn't realize that I had to agree with a particular
mantra to be a member of the list.
This list has devolved into name calling and many are quite disrespectful of
others opinions and comments.
I guess this is what happens when people become old farts?
These posts just show that hams are just like everyone else. The disrespect
shown toward others in the real world is about the same as in this
reflector. I used to think Ham Radio people were better people, would never
cheat, treated others as they would like to be treated. No longer.
Is there a particular platform that members of this list must conform to in
order to be accepted?
At least NN4X has the courage to make some suggestions. Most simply
continue to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
The value of this list continues to fade.
W0MU
On 9/7/2016 10:09 PM, Stephen Bloom wrote:
> Funny enough, mine did as well ..this is the first I've seen of it ..
>
> I'm sorry that NN4X feels that the competition as it stands now is
> unfair ...so in that spirit, May I suggest another new category ..
>
> Troll .. SONB QRP++++ .. I believe Romeo ex. 3W3RR will sponsor a trophy.
>
> Disrespectively committed
> Steve KL7SB
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of David Gilbert
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 6:06 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] New Category Suggestion
>
>
> What difference does it matter who paid for the station?? Presumably
> you're concerned about some station owner having deeper pockets than
> you have, but I can't imagine the can of worms that you'd be opening
> if you tried to tier results by how much somebody paid for their
> station since that concern would have nothing to do with who actually paid
for it.
> Hams who contest from their own stations range from those who are
> unemployed to retired millionaires.
>
> My email client flagged your post as junk mail, by the way. Software
> keeps getting smarter and smarter ...
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 9/7/2016 8:26 AM, Steve Sacco NN4X wrote:
>> In the spirit of transparency, I'd like to suggest a new category:
>> Non Owner Operated Station.
>>
>> This would include those doing contests from RHR and similar websites.
>>
>> This way, I'd know if I'm competing against Amateurs, or Corporate
>> stations, or, at very least, against stations where the sweat equity
>> and $$ was provided by someone other than the op.
>>
>> Respectfully submitted,
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|