Exactly, and it doesn't work for domestic consumption either. That's
why so many people over here are constantly debating the intent behind
the rule, how to interpret it, and how it should apply to unspecified
conditions or behaviors. If contest organizers spent more time trying
to unambiguously define what they want for the end result and less time
merely trying to list all the tools we might try to use to get there,
we'd all be better off.
Dave AB7E
On 12/18/2010 9:02 PM, VR2BrettGraham wrote:
> Like most contest rules - which I note seem to be mostly written in USA
> - the SPTBDC seems to adopt the same look-for-the-bomb instead of
> look-for-the-bomber approach to airline safety.
>
> These contests also seem to presume that what the "bombs" are called is
> known to all.
>
> Too much reference to specific things that cannot be used instead of
> what those things are used for that is really what should be said is not
> allowed to be done.
>
> Maybe is okay for domestic consumption, but it seems even that audience
> is having a bit of a struggle understanding what was meant.
>
> 73, ex-VR2BG/p.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|