[CQ-Contest] to k3bu

[Martín Monsalvo LW9EUJ]

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Martín Monsalvo LW9EUJ [mailto:lw9euj at ciudad.com.ar]
Enviado el: Viernes, 10 de Noviembre de 2000 10:16 p.m.
Para: K3BU at aol.com
CC: cq-contest at conteting.com
Asunto: RE: [CQ-Contest] Single op definition change. (Acting rather
than speaking)


Wow  Insane?
I guess insane are those operators that take advantage of the rules, they
use packet, and then just claim single op, and fight for top positions in
unassisted categories.
The little sanity we have in amateur radio is screwed with fast answers like
yours.:-)
Best regards.

LW9EUJ, quite sane.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: K3BU at aol.com [mailto:K3BU at aol.com]
Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Noviembre de 2000 11:03 p.m.
Para: lw9euj at ciudad.com.ar
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] Single op definition change. (Acting rather
than speaking)


In a message dated 11/9/2000 7:58:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lw9euj at ciudad.com.ar writes:

> Hi:
>  I'm in favor of changing the single op definition to allow the use of
>  packet, and other means of dx alert, such as on the air assist by
friends,
>  etc.

Are you insane?
What kind of single operator is it? (Being assisted by army of operators?)
There are categories for packet crap, Assisted, Multies, etc.
Don't screw the little sanity we have in ham radio!!!



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