[CQ-Contest] Re: Why not complain about CQ also?
ku8e1 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 25 10:23:43 EDT 2002
The ARRL can't prohibit anyone from having a contest on any band.
If the ARRL doesn't like contests they I would say to them why don't
you just discontinue your contest program. Even more $$$ saved for
a silly and stupid activity... Hey ???
The ARRL never seems to really care about the views of the contest
community anyway (which cq-contest is an important forum to express
those views and the CAC) when making rules changes or any deciding
other issues that come before the BoD.
Don't take these comments as me being anti-ARRL... because I am
not. The ARRL is more than just a subscription to QST. I am VERY
grateful for all the work they do over the years fighting for our
frequencies and our right to just put up antennas. I am a life
of the ARRL and proud of it.
It would be very nice if those directors , who we know who are
contesters and probably subscribe to this reflector, would come out
of hiding and let us know why they voted the way they did ????
--- Gerry Maira <gm at netsync.net> wrote:
> > Message: 7
> > From: "Lee Hiers, AA4GA" <aa4ga at contesting.com>
> > To: Cq-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:26:10 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not complain about CQ also?
> > I would say that it gives reason for concern for
> > ARRL's continued sponsorship of contests,
> > possibly even their support of contesting as an
> > allowable activity on the bands - I would not be
> > surprised if they proposed a rules change to the
> > FCC which would prohibit contesting - if you
> > boil it down to membership numbers, I'm sure the
> > majority of members (not active $-spending
> > members, just numbers of members) would support
> > total elimination of contesting. It's only a
> > matter of time.
> Bingo! Someone is finally catching on. The ARRL won't so far as
> trying to prohibit
> contests, but they are distancing themselves from them. The exception
> is the non-contest
> field day exercise which is still good PR for the league.
> I just started out in contesting about 2 years ago. One thing that
> helped spark my
> interest was seeing ARRL contest results in QST. Seeing the results
> there also gave me
> added incentive to try for more points. It won't be quite the same
> without results
> published in QST. NO ONE is going to take the trouble to look at
> scores on the ARRL
> website except for participants. In QST it's right there in front of
> you and easy to
> look at. The same is true for section news.
> I ended my ARRL membership as of 1/02 for reasons that had little to
> do with contesting.
> I was amazed at the number of form letters they sent me trying to get
> me to renew. They
> basically said I wasn't doing my part to help protect Amateur Radio
> by not supporting
> them. The fact is, I need protection from the ARRL! I'm a CW
> operator, a DXer and a
> contester. Those are my main activities in the hobby, and each of
> them requires some
> degree of skill. Each has also suffered to some degree by the actions
> of the ARRL -
> especially CW. They ARRL doesn't want to turn off any of the new
> instant gratification
> folks by requiring or promoting anything that requires skill.
> Articles on things like
> how to properly type a URL in order to access a website, or specials
> like the "ugly
> shack contest" are what they think are appropriate now. They say we
> need more licensed
> hams and ARRL members in order to fend of the evil threats out there.
> Bunk! The threats
> are minimal and I would think almost non-existant on HF. We don't
> need more than a few
> hundred thousand licensed hams in this country to keep the hobby
> going. Dumbing down has
> only lowered the integrity of the hobby, and that's the thing the
> ARRL should be most
> concerned about. They sold us out!
> Gerry KA2MGE
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
More information about the CQ-Contest