[CQ-Contest] focus on the LANGUAGE not the issue and you will better understand

[Jim White]

I think KR6X's comments are falling on deaf ears here...what have you guys
been on 160 in the Summertime listening to static or what????

Leigh's point is that by using WORDS which imply contesting is a negative
thing re 160 problems, the League has opened itself up to having a history
of saying that contesting is a negative thing...anyone who has watched
television news in the past few decades has learned about the deadly "sound
bite" where only a part of a quote is aired....







AND NOW NEWS FROM N.C.R.  (no contest radio)

An ardent anti-contest advocate pointed out that even the ARRL's
bandplanners said that contesting:

"disrupts a large portion of the band".... in a memorandum during the Summer
of 2001








Friggin' wonderful

This is the kinda crap that comes back to haunt you - WE know what was meant
as the ones who use the bands, that is not the point - the issue is our
national organization used language which is Contest "PC"...contest
politically correct...and as such has left us vulnerable.

73,

One Of The Disruptors who obviously does not care that he is spoiling our
bands by his contesting activities...

K4OJ



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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Sun Aug 19 04:45:09 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:45:09 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language retorts
References: <1.5.4.32.20010819012015.0068c68c at pop.vnet.net>
Message-ID: <033801c12861$591d0f60$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Bill, I skimmed this over and I believe that we are in agreement on
every subject within this latest message.

First, due to the absence of an exclusive CW segment in the style of
each of the non-WARC bands 80-10M, greater opportunity exists for
inter-mode interference on 160M than on those other 5 bands.

Second, sufficient bandwidth exists on 160M to accommodate all
activities if it is utilized.  Despite the fact that 160M is the
smallest non-WARC allocation, the 200 KHz allows the separation of
activities to a degree not presently exercized.

Third, contesting can benefit from cooperation with non-contest
interests on 160M.

However, some level of sensitivity should be given to the subject of
my posts, which was the "disrupt the bands" phrase being used.  The
160M bandplan should have been created for the purpose of providing
day-to-day operations with guidance for gentlemanly cooperation, and
to find that it has become a vehicle for (I hope inadvertant) attacks
against contests was something of a surprise.

I won't go into that in depth again here, but I hope that a few weeks
in the future you will have gained a sensitivity to the distinction
that I am trying to draw between "contests disrupt the band" and
"contests cause great interference that can disrupt some
communications."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 6:20 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language retorts


>
> 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
>


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