[Fwd: Re: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES]

[David Robbins]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------1DB318DB22A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-- 
ky1h at berkshire.net   or   robbins at berkshire.net
http://www.berkshire.net/~robbins/ky1h.html

--------------1DB318DB22A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject: Re: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 19:31:57 +0000
From: David Robbins <ky1h at berkshire.net>
Reply-To: ky1h at berkshire.net
Organization: ky1h
To: HENRYPOL at aol.com
References: <960523123438_541248919 at emout17.mail.aol.com>

HENRYPOL at aol.com wrote:
>
> At the risk of being severly flamed (that's OK; got a new fire extinguisher
> with the new fishing boat), I am curious as to why there has not been any
> thread started relative to KR2Q's extensive article in the latest NCJ about
> Contest Rules.
>
> Is it because all of us are guilty of breaking at least one of the rules as
> defined by Doug (re: CT's F8 feature)?  So we don't want to talk about it!
>
> Or, was all of this discussed and "put-to-bed" at Dayton?
>
> Question: Should this article be REQUIRED READING for each operator before
> every major contest?
>
> 73,
> Henry Pollock - WB4HFL
> henrypol at aol.com

oh, that was serious??  i had pretty much figured it was left over
from the april issue.  if that article is really what the published
rules mean i wonder what contest rules i have been reading for all
these years.

besides a few comments about not trusting what you read on packet and
logging all the qso's you make including zero pointers the rest of it
is more confusing than the published rules and seems to extend the
rules beyond what they clearly say.  maybe doug would like lots of this
stuff in the rules, but we would all be so busy checking each qso to
figure out if it was a type a, b, c, or d, that we would never log
anything.  and his conclusions that basically 'if it isn't specifically
allowed then it is banned' is truly anti-progress.  after all if
'athletes enhance their equipment all the time' what do you call getting
a better computer program or improving your club's teamwork with a
better cluster network?  If there were indeed limits on technology
and what it could and couldn't do it should have been spelled out long
ago, much like power limits are now for the various classes.  it almost
sounds like doug is advocating a return to paper logs and is adding
a requirement to use indelible ink and pre bound and numbered logs.

--
ky1h at berkshire.net   or   robbins at berkshire.net
http://www.berkshire.net/~robbins/ky1h.html

--------------1DB318DB22A2--



>From km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P)  Thu May 23 21:07:45 1996
From: km9p at contesting.com (Bill Fisher KM9P) (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 16:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WPX SSB & CW types
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960523160549.10249A-100000 at paris.akorn.net>


If you made the "box" in 96 for your area, please take the time to send 
me your rate sheets in an email message.  We are collecting them and 
making them available via the WWW.  

Actually, I would be interested in any rate sheets from this winter in 
the ARRL DX, WPX, CQWW, or SS.

Thanks

Bill, KM9P


>From jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)  Thu May 23 21:30:10 1996
From: jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback) (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:30:10 -0700
Subject: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES
References: <960523123438_541248919 at emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <9605231330.ZM15148 at hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>

On May 23, 12:34pm, HENRYPOL at aol.com wrote:
> Subject: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES
> At the risk of being severly flamed (that's OK; got a new fire extinguisher
> with the new fishing boat), I am curious as to why there has not been any
> thread started relative to KR2Q's extensive article in the latest NCJ about
> Contest Rules.
>

Well, he got part of quite wrong ... the part about the operator needs to
receive and send it all. Guess he never worked a RTTY contest, or Dear
Doug has a talent most of us lack. Made me wonder about the rest.

73, Jim, WA6SDM
jholly at cup.hp.com

-- 
Jim Hollenback

>From w5robert at blkbox.COM (Robert)  Thu May 23 21:33:41 1996
From: w5robert at blkbox.COM (Robert) (Robert)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:33:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES
Message-ID: <9605231533.aa11666 at blkbox.COM>

> 
> Is it because all of us are guilty of breaking at least one of the rules as
> defined by Doug (re: CT's F8 feature)?  So we don't want to talk about it!
> 
> 73,
> Henry Pollock - WB4HFL
> henrypol at aol.com
> 

Doug's article did not discuss actual contest rules but
a "plain lanuage way of doing rules".  Any resemblance between
actual contest rules and the article is another subject?
At least that's the way I understood it.
In that regard, plain lanuage rules sound OK to me.

-- 
73 Robert  WB5CRG  w5robert at blkbox.com   

>From psoper at encore.com (Pete Soper)  Thu May 23 21:35:52 1996
From: psoper at encore.com (Pete Soper) (Pete Soper)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 16:35:52 EDT
Subject: N6TJ's Swapping CQWW Weekends (Dayton idea)
Message-ID: <16881.9605232035 at earl.encore.com>

AH3C, Pete Grillo wrote:

> Making antenna limitations decide what contests will be participated is the
> operator's choice.  For broad band operation there are many options, one of
> the most clever options we have discovered came from an excellent contest
> forum presentation at Dayton!  I even heard Frank (W3LPL) say that he is
> seriously considering this option.

I'll bet a lot of folks would love to see at least a summary of this idea.
I certainly would!

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG