Ed and all
I agree with the point that the clubs are basically different, but the
CQWW 160 contest is one place where we share a common
interest. My recommendation is simply meant to try to put together
a coalition that can win the club championship.
The issue of membership is another matter, which may need some
attention. First, I believe that we can simply declare that our score
be counted for SEDXC -- CQ does not ask for any documentation
of the club status. Think of it as a donation. If this bothers some of
us, perhaps the SEDXC can be persuaded to make a declaration
that all SECC members are honorary SEDXC members during
January.
Finally, this proposed joint venture is an unofficial, personal
recommendation. While I believe it is for the good of ham radio
contesting in our part of the country, you may not agree.
That's OK with me.
73, Gary
K9AY
--------------
> I believe the 2 Clubs are not compatible in their design. It's all
> fine about joining, but just how members of the SECC can stand the
> drive to a Club meeting? It's a 2 hour drive for me, and I can think
> of better ways to torture myself than getting on I-285 at 5:30.
>
> I really believe some more thought be put into this area. If you
> discount the dual members, the SEDXC has done absolutely nothing to
> support the contests we get in, such as the GA QSO Party.
>
> My score for 160 will go to the SECC.
>
> 73
> Ed
>
> --
> SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
> Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
>
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|