Maybe the authors of the "proposed" rule to clarify the intent and meaning
of the "old" rule need to take a course or two in communicating clearly in
the English language. I would suggest they contact the staff that creates
the IRS tax code - that should clear things up in a jiffy!
73,
Gary AL9A
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC
Sent: July 06, 2013 9:08 AM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
"You're insisting on reading an interpretation into the rule (that
everyone must take a minimum of two breaks with one lasting at least 30
minutes) that has no rational basis given the history and context."
You are correct that I am reading the rule to say that everyone must
take a minimum of two breaks. It says so in plain English. It's not an
interpretation.
I also agree these two breaks must be a minimum of 30 minutes or the
break does not qualify as a valid break.
Please tell me (again) how you turn 1 six-hour break into two breaks
that satisfy the rule as written. Your formula does not do this because
you are counting time, not breaks and there is only one break in my log.
If you can turn 1 break into two, what keeps me from splitting my 1
break into 18 twenty-minute breaks? The log now fails the 30-minute
minimum although it does satisfy the minimum 2 breaks. This is the
consequence of not performing an AND function on two criteria.
I don't agree with your statement "no rational basis given the history
and context".
These new rules are supposed to offer clarity. The past acceptance of
two back-to-back 3-hour breaks in the past is not written anywhere. It
was "common" knowledge, at least among most RTTY operators. I am
complaining that the new rule does NOT address this "exception". The
single 6-hour break should either be accepted or excluded as meeting
the new rule. This should be part of the new rules, in writing, not left
to speculation and debate.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/6/2013 11:34 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
30 -- (6 + 0) = 24
Here's the pseudo SQL ;^)
SELECT OPTIME=(MAX(QSO_TIME) -- MIN(QSO_TIME)) FROM QSOs WHERE CALL='K0RC'
{build temporary table of off time blocks; left as an exercise for the
student)
SET OFFTIME=(SELECT SUM(TOP 2 BLOCKLEN FROM OFFTIMES ORDER BY BLOCKLEN
DESC)
IF OFFTIME <6 THEN
Rule is broken
ELSE
Rule is not broken
ENDIF
You're insisting on reading an interpretation into the rule (that everyone
must take a minimum of two breaks with one lasting at least 30 minutes)
that has no rational basis given the history and context.
Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the
rule change would not require taking 2 blocks of off time.
Al
AB2ZY
*From:*Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc@citlink.net]
*Sent:* Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:17 PM
*To:* Al Kozakiewicz
*Cc:* rtty@contesting.com
*Subject:* Re: [RTTY] contest change
Here's my log:
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
0 QSOs, not operating for 6 hours
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
My "first QSO" is at 0000z. My "last QSO" is 30 hours later.
Please write a formula that will satisfy this rule:
*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first QSO and the last QSO logged
minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed time
where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*
As written, the proposed rule must find two breaks during the 30-hour
period. I only see one "longest break" in my log, which does not satisfy
the stated rule. IF they will accept a SINGLE 6-hour break, the rule
should state that as acceptable. As written, this new rule is worse than
the original text.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/6/2013 10:41 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
Nowhere does it say that you must take two breaks. Only that the off
time will be calculated by summing the length of the longest two. If you
take one break of 6 hours, the rule is satisfied and there is no need to
add in time from an additional break.
Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Off times have a definition. On times
do not. By your interpretation of the rule, it could be satisfied by
taking a 3 hour break; making one QSO; then taking another 3 hours break.
What possible rational purpose would this serve?
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Chudek - K0RC
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:23 AM
To:rtty@contesting.com <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
This is still wrong. In your example 6+0=6 you are counting hours. The
suggested new rule requires a count of two off times. There is only one
off time in 6+0=6.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/5/2013 11:50 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
1+1=2
6+0=6
QED
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Turner
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:01 AM
To: RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped)
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 20:42:43 -0400, Al wrote:
One of those longest 2 blocks could well be of zero length.
REPLY:
I thought we got rid of the New Math. One plus zero equals two?
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com <mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com <mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com <mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|