[CQ-Contest] NAQP change

[Tom Horton]

Folks....
  What he said...I agree with Jim.
Tom K5IID



At 16:42 01/22/04, James Funk wrote:
>Not a lot new to add, but if we get down to "vote counting"....
>
>Here are my reasons for NOT wanting to change the power limitations for DX
>in NAQP:
>1) Limited benefit to DX: They still have to be able to hear NA to work us.
>We still run 100W.
>2) Limited benefit to NA: They still have to be able to hear NA to work us.
>We still run 100W.
>3) No benefit to the Midwest.  The East Coast works more EU.  West Coast
>works more AS on low bands. Maybe.  Selfish on my part, yes.
>4) Logical extension is HP/LP classes for NA as well.  One of the great
>characteristics of NAQP at present is NOT competing with KWs for bandwidth.
>
>What is there not to like about a contest where you never run out of people
>to work?  (Somebody else asked that first.....)
>
>Notwithstanding the original post, and some thoughtful responses, from
>individuals I respect a great deal, I would still have to vote, "It ain't
>broke...."
>
>73, Jim N9JF (sometimes a.k.a. POGO)
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>     The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
>THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
>        http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

"E"  Sorter for the ARRL W5 QSL Bureau
Williamstown, WV