[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

[Jeffrey Clarke]

  W8JI wrote :

   I agree with Bill. SSB contests do not belong on 160 meters, at 
 least not with the rules we have at present. They are simply far too 
 disruptive to everyone, and it is the operators, contest organizers, 
 and FCC/ARRL's fault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

  If I am not mistaken isn't the only ARRL sponsored contest that
really
has any 160 SSB activity is the ARRL DX SSB contest ???  Usually in
that contest the band isn't full of guys from the US calling CQ like
the CQ 160 SSB (except for maybe a few of the big multi-multis). I
guess technically you could operate on 160 SSB in SS but most guys
normally don't. So I guess you can't blame the ARRL contest dept
in this case because their only 160 meter contest is on CW....

  I tend to agree that 160 is not really the place for a SSB DX contest
but I guess it serves a purpose for those guys that don't do CW and
maybe want to try to get their WAS. 

Also, I am disappointed that the ARRL thinks that contesters "disrupt"
the bands. Seems to me a contest encourages people to get on a band
which might be considered not open. (6 and 10 meters come to mind)
Also it gives those who are not serious contesters a chance to work
lots of stations in a short period of time for awards like DXCC , WAS,
IOTA, and others.....

                        73's Jeff







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/


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