Hi guys.
Answer from PJ4G, why?
If I where them I could not care less about the "vocal majority" on a contest
reflector.
THEY exploited a difference in the rules between ARRL and CQWW and used it
perfectly to their advantage. 11.000 QSOs - 3000 above P2 - Outstanding effort.
Will ARRL close this gap, maybe? Do they have to change then? Yes. If ARRL
sticks with the rules we might see more stations capable of boosting their
score.
Another one of these: "OMG, this is the end of the world!" scenarios? NO
There are plenty of contests around the year where this is a non issue.
73
Helmut
> W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> hat am 19. März 2017 um 22:24:
>
>
> When will we see a written statement from the PJ4G guys about how this
> practice is great for contesting for X reasons and that all contests
> might want to consider it because of X.
>
> There is no statement because they are upset that their little "exploit"
> "loophole" etc was exposed for all to see and they are upset. Maybe
> they are embarrassed as the vocal majority seems to feel this was done
> against the spirit of the rules and hobby?
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|