[CQ-Contest] The "weak analogy"

[i4jmy at migate.ampr.org]

The analogy between contesting and olympics was pulled out in the last
days by supporters of newer categories, so misleading (by purpose ?) the
speech to the absurd of No categories at all, fact that's totally out 
from the original topic.

The real question is another. The continuous request of newer and newer 
categories couldn't be explained by a sort of lazyness and desire to 
win anyway anything without dealing ? (athlets trains hard to be selected
and go to the olympics)

The matter stay in the fact, let's continue the olympics analogy since
someone liked, that a number of Hams feel insufficient to choose among 
the number of the EXISTING categories because in any of them they see 
something out of their possibility.

In 100m run someone would require intermediate stops or to have a slooping
track.
In the long term run someone would like to be pushed by someone else or
to be allowed using a bycicle, to stop for lunch or watching TV.
In soccer they would ask for reducing players down to a smaller number so
everyone could have his competitive team (may be 11 is too much).

Someone would somehow modify something of the existing categories, just to
create OTHER NEW ones where it's supposed to be competive (huh?), without
any kind of deal (study, sacrifice, etc.) but leaving everithing he has
just like it is, year after year.

When a competition is not a matter of individual strenght, but a compound 
of brain, technology and will, does it have any sense to take away the
need of developing and dealing to achieve something ?


73,
Mauri, I4JMY (one of IR4T)


E-mail I4JMY at uugate.aim.utah.edu

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