KM9P's dilemma

[kr2j at aol.com]

I must apologize to KM9P and all the others who operate from a
propagationally challenged QTH.  I now realize that my insensitivity to this
unfortunate situation may have resulted in some bruised egos or hurt felings.
 I realize that through no fault of your own you have been living in or
operating from a QTH where winning a contest is not possible.  I also
apologize for thinking that I could have any perception of how awful this
must be!  

I have reconsidered my position and now think that all contest rules should
be rewritten in order to make things a little more equitable for those who
have been held back due to propagation inequality.
Beginning in the CQWW this fall, I propose that any station or operator at
any station that has actually won a DX contest previously, be ineligible for
any awards in the future.  In addition, these operators should be limited to
one half (1/2) of the total permitted operating time.  A minimum of 2 hours
of off time must be taken after sunrise for these stations.  Furthermore, any
operation by any of these stations within 25 khz of the lower band edge on
Single Sideband will disqualify the station from competition.  All
multioperator stations will not be permitted to use packet.  Any attempt to
"pass" or "move" a multiplier or other station from one band to another will
be expressly prohibited.  

I think my proposed ideas are a good start and this is long overdue.  These
people have suffered enough anguish and embarrasment.  It is time to make up
for the past.  I feel as though a burden has been lifted from me and I know
that I can now hold my head high when I attend the Contest Forum in Dayton. 
And while we're on Dayton,  I think the choice of K1DG and WZ1R as emcees for
the contest forum is a slap in the face to KM9P and the rest of those guys. 
At least K3LR was close to the midwest.  Really guys, I feel your pain.

73, Bob KR2J


>From Jay Townsend" <jayt at comtch.iea.com  Thu Mar 17 21:42:18 1994
From: Jay Townsend" <jayt at comtch.iea.com (Jay Townsend)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 13:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: WN4KKN U R WRONG
Message-ID: <m0phPpa-0001DxC at comtch.iea.com>

> Sure Jose likes 36 hours.  If I lived where I could run stations for 48
> hours, I wouldn't like 30 hour limitations either.  Trey's editorial is RIGHT
> ON THE MARK.  If you disagree, it is my contention that you probably live
> somewhere that offers 36 hours of runnable conditions.
> 
> Bill, KM9P
> 
I was having a conversation last night about this subject as it applies to
M/S stations.  I wonder if anyone has data which would indicate whether or
not since the change from 30 to 36 hours that the winning line has moved
further east or ?

I wonder Bill, if you are talking about the editorial in the NCJ? Heck I
haven't even gotten mine yet !  Goes to show you how far west the left coast
really can be.



-- 
Jay Townsend, Ws7i  < jayt at comtch.iea.com >


>From Smith, Pete" <PSmith at codei.hq.nasa.gov  Fri Mar 18 00:48:00 1994
From: Smith, Pete" <PSmith at codei.hq.nasa.gov (Smith, Pete)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 16:48:00 PST
Subject: WPX Rules
Message-ID: <2D88FBC6 at ms.hq.nasa.gov>


If one of the objectives of the 36-hour time is to  encourage DXpeditioning, 
then why not do it "right" and permit anyone on a dxpedition -- operating 
outside the country where he is normally resident -- to operate 48 hours. 
 Then put them in a separate category, and let the rest of us go back to a 
30-hour schedule.  There's ample precedent for separate awards for 
dxpeditions -- remember the old "one-weekend dxpedition" class in the old 
ARRL DX contest?

Pete N4ZR

>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org  Thu Mar 17 23:20:24 1994
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 16:20:24 -0700
Subject: CQ WPX PHONE RECORDS  ---  CORRECTION
Message-ID: <199403172320.AA16440 at teal.csn.org>

>In your message you write:
 
>> CQ WPX PHONE RECORDS THROUGH 1993
>>  
>> Single Band - 7 Mhz       
>> N5RZ           92   1,396,646  
>>
>> KC7EM          92   1,396,646  
 
>Looks suspiciously like a typo...
 
>73,
>Paul, NX1H 
 
 
 
I received this message from Paul, and he is correct, I did make a mistake.
One of those midnight typos.  Please change the N5RZ 40M score to:
 
CQ WPX PHONE RECORDS TROUGH 1993
Single Band - 7 MHz
N5RZ              92  1,043,316
 
 
I also have a change for the ARRL records that appeared in January NCJ and
I will publish corrected listing here on internet after enough time has
passed for everyone to double check them and send me corrections.
 
Thanks for checking, it is reassuring to know that people care enough to 
actually read the stuff!
 
73  John  W0UN   broz at csn.org
 
 
 
 

>From Rich K2WR <72407.1262 at CompuServe.COM>  Fri Mar 18 01:05:09 1994
From: Rich K2WR <72407.1262 at CompuServe.COM> (Rich K2WR)
Date: 17 Mar 94 20:05:09 EST
Subject: WN4KKN being wrong etc.
Message-ID: <940318010508_72407.1262_FHG50-2 at CompuServe.COM>

I also have not gotten my NCJ yet - - 2nd class mail delivery is
notoriously bad in New York City.  Therefore, in order to keep the
terms of the debate fair for those of us who are postally challenged,
I am requesting that no comment be made on the reflector about any
issue raised in a magazine until 14 days after the normal
publication date.

Rich K2WR