90% of 487 Messages = Pure Crap

[K7LXC at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-04-09 01:43:38 EDT, you write:
>WANTED: More discussions of propagation phenomenon observed in the last
>contest ala K3ZO's posting....NOT WANTED rantings and ravings about of all
>things, United Parcel Service, AGAIN!!!
>Is there someplace the real contesters are hanging out these days...it used
>to be CQ-Contest....but the postings I used to enjoy have dried up, a hole
>bunch of cutesy crap ala some chat room from America On-Line has moved in!!!
>More talk about the Loos-Gauge....less CRAP from loosers.*

Hiya, Jimbo --

   GREAT post.  I have to admit, though, that I enjoy the wide range of
comments but am really only interested in the meaningfull ones that you
mentioned -- real live contesting issues and ideas.  The recent discussion of
amplifier theory and application was WAY OVER my head but it was fascinating
to see actual informed comments and explanations.  This reflector (and
thanks, Trey, for making it available!), for better or worse,  is just like
real life -- some great moments with a lot of extraneous garbage.  It's kind
of organic, too.  It changes and grows as it evolves -- sometimes for the
better and sometimes not.  I'm going to wade through it all because I love
contesting and I really want to be a part of the contesting community.  I
even want to make a contribution back to it through my tower column and
advice when I'm asked.  Jim, your pithy comments and perspective are always
appreciated -- especially this one!

   BTW, I am also a recent subsciber to the DX reflector and IMHO it's even
worse.

73,  Steve   K7LXC

>From jh1hrj at tpost1.netspace.or.jp (Kazuaki Oya)  Tue Apr  9 19:52:05 1996
From: jh1hrj at tpost1.netspace.or.jp (Kazuaki Oya) (Kazuaki Oya)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:52:05 +0900
Subject: Wanted EA-RTTY contest rule.
Message-ID: <199604091852.DAA02899 at tpost1.netspace.or.jp>

Hello everybody.
I would like to know the rule, address to send the log, and dead log dead line
of EA-RTTY contest held on April 7.
Please send me a mail if somebody knows the information.
Thank you.      --- Kaz



>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u at voyager.net  Tue Apr  9 20:04:37 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u at voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:04:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 90% of... This reflector needs a change.
Message-ID: <199604091904.PAA10986 at vixa.voyager.net>

At 09:04 AM 4/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>PLEASE READ THIS!
>-----------------
>
>The solution to this problem is very simple and requires a little work.  
>We change this reflector to be MODERATED.  A message sent to a moderated 
>reflector first gets sent to a moderator.  The moderator then reads the 
>message and approves it or does nothing in which case it gets trashed.
>
>Anyone can be the moderator.  It can (and probably should be) changed by 
>the list owner.  Of course someone will be burdened by this task, but if 
>we share the responsibility of the task, then I don't think it would be 
>as bad.
>
>What we will get is intelligent discussions again instead of BS postings 
>by guys that never operate contests and obviously have nowhere else to 
>call home.
>
>IMO
>
>73
>
>Bill, KM9P
>
Hi Bill,
I hope the selected "moderator" and I agree on what is BS......  Everyone
has their own interests even within the broad category of contesting. What
is interesting for one person may not be interesting to me...etc. Some of
the recent postings, 3rd party, some qro...not all, have been hard to take
for me but gee, I just delete them and move on. At least I had the choice.
Not sure I want some well intentioned "moderator" deciding for me what I
should be interested in. 

73,
Ugly


>From k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller)  Tue Apr  9 20:34:06 1996
From: k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:34:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Contest Catagories
Message-ID: <199604091934.OAA29474 at onyx.southwind.net>

Someone was rather "in-flammed" here a couple of days ago when the talk on 
the reflector was something less than pure contesting.  Well, I thought I 
would stick my fool head out and make a proposal.  Anybody got an axe?

I have been most impressed with the big guns on the reflector talking about 
their stations, but most of the people contesting has not spent the amount 
of dollars in equipment and antennas.  That is fine, but my wife (I love her 
dearly) won't let me and neither will my banker (he is OK, but I'm not in 
love with him).

For instance, back in 1980 and 81, I won SS in multi-op with a TS820, SB220, 
a TH6 and a TH3 with dipoles for 80 and 40.  That is today a modest station. 
 I recognize that some people are not even that well off in equipment or 
antennas, but I am a far cry off from some of the stations I've heard 
described on the reflector.

Question:  Should contest be configured to allow for classes of stations? 
ie;  Dreadnought Stations - Magnum Stations - Super Stations - Howitzer 
Stations - Shotgun Stations - Popgun Stations - BB-Gun Stations - Peanut 
Whistle Stations.

This proposal is already in effect for QRP stations, but what about 
spreading around the "winning glory" a little with divisions for different 
types of stations.  A simple formula could be constructed to determine what 
catagory of station you would fit.

Lets see if some of you bright boys out there can come up with a formula to 
determine the catagory.  For example:

tower =                 1 point per foot (for all towers)
Triband beam =          100 points  (if you have two X2)
Monobander beam =       200 points  (if you have six X6)
Big Amp =               1000 points (2000 points over 1500 watts)
Small Amp =             500 points
Less than 150 watts =   150 points
Dipole =                 50 points
Loop =                   75 points
Computer =              500 points
Memory Keyer =          100 points

Typical station (such as mine) would add up to: 1360
Magnum Station would add up to: 1 bazillion

Whoops, I am in the Shotgun class!


Should we also provide divisions for computer assisted or non computer 
assisted stations?  memory keyer or no memory keyer stations?  (I do not 
want to dupe ever again, so you won't see me there!)

How about a division in multi-op catagories.  Multi-op high power, multi-op 
low power ( I would like to see this in SS).  Multi-op is not only fun, but 
it gives a chance to train other hams in contest operations.

Remember guys, this is only to get the discussion going.  Don't take it 
personally.  I am real nice guy....just ask me...I'll tell you.
I'm a reall nice guy!

Lee Buller
K0WA 
k0wa at southwind.net


>From mraz at rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz)  Tue Apr  9 21:10:34 1996
From: mraz at rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 15:10:34 CDT
Subject: Another Attack on Contesting and non-contest QRG
Message-ID: <9604092010.AA04184 at maverick.aud.alcatel.com>

Bill, AA4LR, said:

> I can ALMOST understand the 10m thing. Given that a fair number of novices
> and tech-plus operators have sole access to HF phone on 28.3-28.5 -- they
> don't have the option of going anywhere when the contest hits.

Then again, as you said in a previous paragraph:

> * Contests are generally single mode -- use the other mode


73
Kris AA5UO
mraz at aud.alcatel.com

>From Jim Lowman <jlowman at iepsnet.com>  Tue Apr  9 21:20:03 1996
From: Jim Lowman <jlowman at iepsnet.com> (Jim Lowman)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:20:03 -0700
Subject: 90% of... This reflector needs a change.
Message-ID: <12200303100342 at iepsnet.com>

At 09:04 AM 4/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>PLEASE READ THIS!
>-----------------
>
>The solution to this problem is very simple and requires a little work.  
>We change this reflector to be MODERATED.  A message sent to a moderated 
>reflector first gets sent to a moderator.  The moderator then reads the 
>message and approves it or does nothing in which case it gets trashed.
>
>Anyone can be the moderator.  It can (and probably should be) changed by 
>the list owner.  Of course someone will be burdened by this task, but if 
>we share the responsibility of the task, then I don't think it would be 
>as bad.
>
>What we will get is intelligent discussions again instead of BS postings 
>by guys that never operate contests and obviously have nowhere else to 
>call home.

Count my vote as STRONGLY AGAINST moderation.  

Every time a list or newsgroup gets cluttered by junk, someone always comes out
of the woodwork in favor of censorship.  I suggest that this is not the answer.

If you want to see moderation in action, just subscribe to the boatanchors list
for a while.  This guy is constantly posting messages to the list that are
critical
of the messages posted.  Since this guy also has the gall to CHARGE $12 to
be on his list each year, it's even more ridiculous!

73 de Jim - KF6CR


>From Ronald D Rossi <rrossi at btv.ibm.com>  Tue Apr  9 21:46:08 1996
From: Ronald D Rossi <rrossi at btv.ibm.com> (Ronald D Rossi)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 16:46:08 -0400
Subject: Third Parties...getting long again!
Message-ID: <9604092046.AA31015 at btv.ibm.com>

>>>Stan Griffiths said:
> >I have come to look at it this way...If the party doing the talking could
> be replaced by a DVK, then that is essentially what they are.  I don't
> recall complaints regarding the use of DVKs to make contacts with non-third
> party agreement nations/territories.  When the DVK starts thinking and
> speaking on its own that may pose a problem.  Makes sense to me.
> >
> >-- 
> >73 de N1PBT...ron (rrossi at btv.ibm.com) <><
> 
> Well, the party doing the talking CAN'T be replaced by a DVK, can they?
> That person generally is tuning the radio, deciding which way and how much
> to tune it, deciding when to transmit, pressing keys on a keyboard to log
> contacts, etc.  Only the "talking" aspect of their activities can be
> replaced by a DVK.
> 
> Since a DVK is not conisidered an operator, and a single op station can use
> one without putting himself in a multi op category, it would follow that if
> another person doing part of the activities is "nothing more than a DVK",
> that station should still be considered single op . . . regardless of how
> many people are doing the talking and acting only as DVKs.
> 
> I can't buy your argument . . . but it did provide food for thought.  I am
> interested in any other thoughts you have on this interesting subject.
> 

You are taking the argument to a context that it was not intended for.  Regarding third party traffic it is the content of the message that counts.  With respect to the content of the message, the DVK argument holds.  The traffic is not third party.

Regarding contest entry class it is mostly the equipment operation and configuration that counts.  The DVK argument was never intended to hold for this case.

The reply reminded my of a skit off the ALBUM that Monty Python released for Holy Grail.  It is an analysis by a philosipher of the "She's a witch!" scene.  The comparison ends up with his wife quite illogically concluding that "If she buys kippers, it will not rain...."!  Anyway I digress.

-- 
73 de N1PBT...ron (rrossi at btv.ibm.com) <><



>From C. Logan Dietz (KE5FI)" <ke5fi at wt.net  Tue Apr  9 23:08:30 1996
From: C. Logan Dietz (KE5FI)" <ke5fi at wt.net (C. Logan Dietz (KE5FI))
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:08:30 -0700
Subject: 90% of... This reflector needs a change.
References: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960409085735.2463C-100000 at paris.akorn.net>
Message-ID: <316ADFDE.2032 at wt.net>

Bill Fisher KM9P wrote:
> 
> PLEASE READ THIS!
> -----------------
> 
> The solution to this problem is very simple and requires a little work.
> We change this reflector to be MODERATED.  

CENSORSHIP!!!!!!

Gad!

Chuck, KE5FI