[CQ-Contest] Here we go again

[Richard Zalewski]

Right on!  Thanks for stating the position so succinctly.

Dick W7ZR


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:03:47 -0800, Bill Turner <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:25:09 +0100, i4jmy wrote:
> 
> >This concept is wise and should have been adopted, but such an idea
> >implies mind flexibility and will to learn, as well as the real
> >understanding of the word "competition".
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> I am glad to see the SO2R folks have "mind flexibility" and understand
> the word "competition".  Flexing their minds, they will now understand
> why having the ability to listen while transmitting makes the
> competition "unfair" and why an SO1R category helps make it more fair.
> 
> Likewise, they understand the competition is most fair and most
> exciting when the playing field is as level as possible, and will work
> to make it so.
> 
> They will now understand why Indy cars do not race against stock cars,
> why heavyweights do not box middleweights and why 40-foot sailboats do
> not race against 20-footers.  The Indy car guys do not point to the
> stock car guys and say "life is not fair, get used to it".
> 
> If their minds really are flexible, they will understand that all
> sports, other than amateur radio, make a serious attempt to level the
> playing field as much as possible.
> 
> And for what seems like the zillionth time, NOBODY WANTS TO BAN SO2R.
> They just want SO1R in its own category.  There is at least one
> contest which already does this: The Mexican RTTY contest, held the
> second weekend of February.  Perhaps other contest sponsors will take
> note?
> 
> --
> Bill W6WRT
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>