But the statistics do not support your biased view - Plain and simple - Troll
through ALL the results and let us know how many times ASSISTED beat UNASSITED
- the answer will highlight your biased response
From: Stan Stockton [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, 31 July 2017 11:11 PM
To: Trent Sampson
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
Here we go again.
The answer to your question has zero relevance on whether they should be
Do the results show being assisted is a detriment like QRP is a detriment as
compared to low power. If so, it's like me saying that QRP scores don't beat
low power scores so why not combine those categories.
If anyone thinks that SO scores would not be as good if those top operators
used the internet to provide them a list of multipliers to work, they have no
clue. If a survey was taken of those who operate SO in serious fashion the
result would be they don't want them combined.
I have yet to see any logical reason to eliminate the category other than it is
difficult to enforce the rules.
73... Stan, K5GO
Sent from Stan's IPhone
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:26 AM, Trent Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The Assisted category in the CQWW is 25 years old this year;
> It was created because of the advantages" given to operators who were using
> the spotter networks
> In all of the 25 years of assisted categories in the CQWW how many times has
> the world SOAB (Assisted) beaten the SOAB (Unassisted) ? - It is a trick
> Based on factual information is there any reason to not combine the
> categories ? before you answer look at the data...
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list