[CQ-Contest] M/S questions

[Richard L. King]

At 08:59 AM 11/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-11-06 08:11:23 EST, N4KG wrote:
>
><< It's a shame there is no place for two or three aging contesters
> to get together at an average home station to enjoy the CQ WW
> contests.  >>
>
>Oh come Tom.  How can you say this?  2 or 3 aging contesters CAN get together
>to ENJOY the CQWW contest.  If you don't like the M/S limits, go M/M!  If
>your objective is to ENJOY the contest, then ENJOY IT!  If you want to limit
>your m/m to just 2 or 3 guys, DO IT!
>
>I think what I am reading is that there is need to have a category where 2 or
>3 aging guys can WIN.  Winning is a function of your motivation.  If you are
>so driven to WIN, then you will find a way to 1) improve your station 2)
>improve your skills.
>
>As just mentioned by W2A, they APPEAR to have done an exemplary job using ONE
>SET of antennas on a SMALL CITY LOT.
>
>But if you out to ENJOY the contest (which I bet W2A op's did too!), then you
>can do anything you want as a group...just enter M/M!
>
>de Doug KR2Q
>
>[the opinions expressed above are my own and are NOT necessarily those of any
>group, or committee that I may be associated with.]

Doug, I sure hope these are only your opinions because your answers are
just blowing smoke to detract from a real need in the CQWW. Why would you
say that a one transmitter station should go M/M if they don't like that
M/S requires two transmitters in CQWW? I don't get that logic? 

And how much should they improve their skills in order to compete with two
transmitter multis if they are using one transmitter? A lot I bet? 

There are more stations in the world with one transmitter than there are
with two transmitters. Knowing this, how can you imply there is no place
for a M/S category in CQWW using just one transmitter. 

I don't think these people want to WIN, they just want to COMPETE. It is
really a shame that you don't have a category for them. Appropriate
categories is an area that the ARRL DX really outshines the CQWW. And it is
really sad, because the CQWW is very popular. But the reason it is popular
is not because a M/S station has to have two transmitters.

There is nothing wrong with the existing CQWW categories except that one
more category is needed; a 'real' multi-single. Instead of criticizing the
motovation of those that want a true M/S, why don't you offer an
explanation of why the CQWW doesn't have such a category.

73, Richard
K5NA at BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com