CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog

To: VE3FH <ve3fh@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CX2DK CQWW checklog
From: Peter Bowyer <peter@salmark.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 06:31:14 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
And that was likely the reason no action was taken the first year this
station failed to produce a recording.

The second year running, though, he had a year to plan how to comply with
the rule and failed to do so, it was time to act.

If you have a rule that's there to provide a way for a top station to
demonstrate they are in compliance, and 2 years running the same top
station breaks that rule, you have to start enforcement otherwise you may
as well not bother.

Peter G4MJS

On 6 Mar 2017 12:10 a.m., "VE3FH via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
wrote:

> Give me a break!!
>
> There's tons of reasons why anyone could do much better than expected and
> end up placing much higher in the results, if by chance someone ends up
> within the top three and made no recording thinking there was no chance for
> that to happen then that competitor is rewarded with being tossed in the
> checklog pot and accused of wrongdoing... What a joke!!
>
> 73,
> Julio VE3FH
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>