Novice/Tech Shootout in CQP

[zf8bs at twg.com]

One of the Northern California Contest Club's newest members, Jenny,
KD6KKP, is going to make a serious run for the Novice/Technician trophy 
during the California QSO Party next weekend.  In so doing, Jenny
(age 9; look for her picture on page 117 of the June QST) will be
challenging perennial winner Louise, KA6ING as well as veteran contester
Robert, N7STU.  This promises to be spirited competition!  Jenny will 
be handing out Stanislaus County as a multiplier (which is relatively 
rare).  Please don't forget the novice bands during CQP--go take a look 
up there an see if you can find one of our novice/technician entrants.  
You'll be giving help and encouragement to the next generation of CW 
ops, and we need every one of 'em.  Personally, I plan on doing a quick 
scan each time I do a band change.  The suggested novice/tech frequencies 
are 3.685, 7.110, 21.110, and 28.450 (the last one probably a moot point!).  
Complete rules are in September QST and October CQ.
                                           Bruce Sawyer, AA6KX

>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Tue Sep 20 20:15:44 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TWO RADIOES
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409201243.E26116-a100000 at bach>


> >  KEVIN - WA8ZDT wrote:
> 
> Before internet, none of this bitching would have
> happened.  Remember on 3830, the only things discussed were antennas, operating
> techniques, and band openings that others may have missed.
> 
> Now look at us.
> 
Oh, come now...there was plenty of bitching, it was just distributed and
not publicized.  I remember vociferous arguments about two-radios and the
use of memory keyers in the mid-seventies when I was a Novice.  I will
agree that we now have a public forum for it and so it seems that there is
more.  Many of these issues NEED to be discussed as the technology is
moving so quickly.  I feel like 90% of all squabbles about rules and
modes, etc. stems from the lack of peer-recognition and all being lumped
in the same bag, together, regardless of ability or resources.  But that's
another issue.

73, Ward N0AX



>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Tue Sep 20 20:29:21 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TWO RADIOES
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409201215.F26116-b100000 at bach>



On Tue, 20 Sep 1994, Derek Wills wrote:

> If people are going to be this blatant, there are presumably
> a bunch more people who are using packet in a more subtle way.
> The only cure I can see for this is to dump the unassisted
> category, but I know many will disagree with that.
> 
A fun way to catch 'em is post some juicy, but non-existent spot.  Call
this non-existent spot yourself.  Then, when they show up and begin
frantically calling, offset your signal a little bit and say, "W6***, no
packet cheating!"

Seriously, if we had ten or twelve volunteer judges just roaming the
bands, located in each major cluster area of the country, it would sure
give these casual cheaters second thoughts.  I'll bet most of them would
run clean and leave only the incorrigibles.  I brought up the idea of
contest OO's a year ago and it degenerated into contest police, which was
too severe.  The same guys would look for multiple CQ-ing, crappy signals,
and other observable infractions.

I bet there would be plenty of experienced, trustworthy volunteers to do
it, too.

Ward N0AX