[CQ-Contest] publcizing reports of 'assumed, suspected' statiions with bad sigs..

[k3ft at erols.com]

Ken Claerbout wrote:
> 
> >I'll make it so your post can be anonymous or not with >date, time, band,
> and comments fields.  The most >complained about stations (top-10 USA and
> top-10 >Europe) can be featured on CQ-Contest once per >month for their
> efforts.  :)
> 
> >Sounds like a plan!  We can start with the 10 Meter >Contest this weekend!
> 
> Right - and we have all seen the valuable input from some of the anonymous
> postings on reflectors.  Something like this is ripe with potential for
> abuse.  What's to say the person making the report doesn't have their noise
> blanker cranked up, is just suffering overload from a very strong signal, or
> has an ax to grind so they stuff the ballot box on someone?  I'm sure the
> anti-contesting community could have fun with this.  Some poor slob could
> wind up on Contesting.Com's 10 most wanted without proper cause.  I'm all
> for cleaning up the bands but this seems a little excessive.  If you think
> someone has a bad signal, just come out and tell them on the air or drop
> them an e-mail.
> 
> 73
> Ken K4ZW
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contestAnonymous reporting? Public posting without authenticated attribution of the originator?
Accuasations without substantiation? Public tarrings and featherings sans ANY 
determination that the reporter wasn't in error?

Good grief! This can't be from supposedly enlightened people in  2002! This has to be 
from reports of people talking back, say, the late 1700's, or maybe 1939, 1941, or maybe 
the 1950's and 1960's?

Amazing how little things change!

K3FT