[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language retorts

[Bill Tippett]

Hi Leigh!

        I feel I must respond to several points you made pubicly
because I cannot let them stand unanswered.

        In my opinion, the CQ 160 SSB is the most disruptive contest
of any amateur contest on any band...and I have personal experience
with most of them.  Here's why:

1.  If 160-10 are filled with a single-mode DX contest like the CQWW,
WPX or ARRL DX, it is usually possible for a single-mode op to find a
portion of their favorite band that is relatively quiet (usually high
in the band...but often low in the case of 160).  If an op is
multi-mode, the solution is very simple...go to the other mode for the
weekend.

2.  The ARRL 10 which is multi-mode single-band fortunately occurs on
a band with vast real estate...and mode segmentation.  CW ops can go
above 28200 and SSB ops can go above 29000 even when the band is at
peak activity like it was this past year.

3.  Other 160 contests like the CQ 160 CW, ARRL 160, etc. seldom have
CW activity much above 1860 so SSB ops still have 140 kHz in which to
hide...although those who frequent 1840-1860 may be inconvenienced.
Knowledgeable CW ops who choose not to participate in DX contests on
160 know they can use 1800-1810 since this area is not available to
Europe or Japan.

        So what is the unique problem with the CQ 160 SSB?  Simply
stated there is NO place for a CW operator to hide.  Contrary to what
K8MR implied, SSB does not stop at 1820...it goes all the way down to
1800.  This is the only contest I am aware of that truly forces a CW
op to turn off his radio for the entire weekend as responses on this
reflector have already indicated.  If that is not disruptive I don't
know what is.  It is truly a unique problem that NEEDS TO BE SOLVED,
not ignored and not covered with a smokescreen of rhetoric claiming
prejudicial bias.  You may know that I have been the moderator for the
Top Band reflector for the past 5 years and there is NO other contest
that generates more ill-will toward contesting than this one.  If you
want to read through some of these, I'll be happy to provide
references...they are easy to find because they always come right
after the CQ 160 SSB in February.

        Several members of the committee are very experienced
contesters and share your opinions about the benefits of contesting.
However, to publicly call us prejudicial and compare us to racists is
frankly uncalled-for.  If I encounter a problem, I like to solve it.
The first step to solving any problem is always recognition that you
have one.  I'm here to tell you that we DO have a serious problem with
the CQ 160 SSB that should not be ignored, because it IS hurting
contesting in my opinion.  Do what you must but please don't castigate
those of us that are attempting to address an obvious problem...my
last comment on this subject.

                                                                            
                    73,  Bill W4ZV



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