VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] New Rules....

To: David All <n3xudfm19@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] New Rules....
From: Paul Decker <kg7hf@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:58:27 +0000 (UTC)
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Then no one bothers or cares to earn a particular award, and likely another 
award body following their own rules will be created which people will use.



----- Original Message -----
From: David All <n3xudfm19@gmail.com>
To: Marshall Williams <k5qe@sabinenet.com>
Cc: Pacific NW VHF Society <pnwvhfs@googlegroups.com>, Frank Bechdoldt (WAU) 
<Frank.Bechdoldt@gapac.com>, VHF Reflector <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>, VHF 
Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:17:25 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] New Rules....

I agree, for our National Sanctioning Body to have gone away from one of
the time honored traditions in the QSL cards with LOTW was one thing.  But
to amend the criteria for an award with anything less than a physical card
or today society LOTW then is a insult to the award as created.
Dave N3XUD

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Marshall Williams wrote:

> Hello Frank....Of course you are correct.  Absent some pretty clear
> hanky panky, the QSL card should be the "gold standard".
>
> Now we have a new post telling us that someone or some group(???) at
> ARRL is going to change the rules.  Of course we will not be
> consulted...as usual for the secretive ARRL, the results will just be
> pronounced as an ARRL Bull.  To think that FFMA will now start to look
> like DXCC is just appalling.  But considering the HF centric ARRL and
> the people at HQ, I suppose it should not be surprising.
>
> We shall see how all this shakes out.....Sean "warned" me that I had
> better have video for the DL88 trip....this in spite of the fact that
> there is NOTHING in the current rules to support such a demand.  So
> maybe these changes will be sprung on us before late June.....
>
> Maybe if we took 422GB of video and sent it all to his inbox, he would
> suddenly think twice about wanting all this video.  HI HI
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
> On 3/2/2012 9:27 PM, Bechdoldt, Frank (WAU) wrote:
> >
> > The validity of a QSL card should remain the same no matter what it is
> > used for. To not consider it valid for any award or contest dishonors
> > both men involved in the QSL cards existence. That being said any two
> > men conspiring to cheat that are caught should have all awards revoked
> > and can never participate in the program(s) again.  Pretty damn simple.
> >
> > The ARRLs raising the standard on Marshall and others to one not
> > applied to Fred Fish, questions the integrity of these men as compared
> > to Fred Fish.  I think it's fair to say Fred Qualified based on 488
> > QSL cards, not videos and gps units or pictures. That should be the
> > standard, or Fred Fish did not achieve the standard of the award
> > bearing his name. If that's the case the Program should be cancelled,
> > a standard set and a date to begin with the new standard and clear
> > communication of what the standard is. This is the slippery slope the
> > ARRL has chosen to go down.
> >
> > K3uhf
> ------
> Submissions:                                  vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator:        vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information:    http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>