[ DAKOTA-HAM ] Fw: [CQ-Contest] US/VE Hams: QST - Do we have a say in it?

[Mike]

I don't know Hans, but the last issue of CQ that I picked up
at the newstand had the top score results of the CQ 160 contest
listed with the usual writeup and soapbox, but I couldn't for the
life of me find the detailed score listings. Far as I could tell there
were no where to be found in that issue. For better or for worse,
CQ may be one step ahead of ARRL on this.

Does anyone know if the detailed score listings are posted on
the web somewhere?

Mike, W4EF.........................

----- Original Message -----
From: "K0HB H. Brakob" <HHBrakob at email.msn.com>
To: "MWA Reflector" <mn-wireless-assn at yahoogroups.com>; "CQ Contest
Reflector" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ DAKOTA-HAM ] Fw: [CQ-Contest] US/VE Hams: QST - Do we have a
say in it?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Blaske" <lblaske at pclink.com>
>
> >
> > If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If contest
> > results (or DXCC results) aren't published in a paper magazine, is it
> > as if the contest (or DX competition) never happened?
> >
> > Even if this material wasn't published in the magazine, it could
> > still be "published" in the CD ROM archives of QST, couldn't it? A
> > computer version would also be searchable. Also, there isn't anything
> > preventing someone from printing out this material if they want a
> > hard copy.
> >
>
> Good point, Lee, but the wrong point in my opinion.
>
> Yesterday, in response to some of this traffic, Dave Sumner
> sent me a nice message in which he explained some of the
> rationale behind these proposed changes.  Dave is an articulate
> guy and I have a great deal of respect for him -- in my opinion, he
> one of best things to ever happen to ARRL.
>
> In his message he makes this point.
>
>   "We can say with pride that the ARRL is in the forefront
>    among national membership associations in making
>    effective use of the Internet. Our commitment of resources
>    has kept pace with its growing importance."
>
> He's absolutely right.  Have you visited the ARRL website?
> It is GREAT!  The news there is way ahead of QST; it is
> attractively presented; there seems to be almost no end
> to the kind of amateur-related material that can be
> accessed from there; and 98% of it is absolutely free
> for the asking -- no membership required.  Why even
> subscribe?
>
> Hold that last thought!  There will be a quiz.
>
> Now I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't been formally trained in
> weasel-wording, but I think I can recognize some when I see
> it.  Our Director tells me that "The whole purpose of
> posting Contest Results on the Web site was to provide
> a more useful tool to contesters while addressing expenses."
> If you read that sort of fast, it almost sounds like a good thing,
> doesn't it?
>
> Remember that thought I asked you to hold?  Keep holding
> it.
>
> Fast forward to a year from now.  Suppose that the BoD
> has accepted and HQ has implemented the notion that contests
> can be better reported on the ARRL web site.  Suppose further
> that you are just newly interested in contesting, and deciding
> where to spend a little money on a magazine which will support
> your new interest.  You know that both CQ and ARRL sponsor
> a lot of contests.
>
> Are you still holding that thought?
>
> OK, here's the quiz.
>
> Will you:
>
>   1) Join ARRL to get QST, and get CQ scores from your buddy who
>     subscribes.
>
> or.....
>
>   2) Subscribe to CQ and get your ARRL contest info for free off the
>    ARRL web site.
>
> With all kind regards,
>
> de Hans, K0HB
>
>
> --
> 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