[CQ-Contest] Log checking questions

Pete Smith n4zr at contesting.com
Mon Dec 19 08:15:27 EST 2005

Gosh, this is offensive -- two serious, ethical contesters being slandered for doing nothing other than trying to stir up more casual activity in the contest.

How can anyone who contests say that casual ops "don't really exist"?  IIRC, in CQWW there are at least 10X as many callsigns in the QSO database as there are entrants in the contest.  Even allowing for busted calls, doesn't that suggest that casual operators are the most important ingredient in the contesting stew (sorry, couldn't resist).

73, Pete N4ZR

At 01:29 AM 12/19/2005, N7MAL wrote:
>WOW I'm impressed I've been awarded the silliest comment of the year award and been called ""amazingly
>It has been pointed out during this thread it would be nice before you guys make comments try reading first. 2 of the biggest spotters were KT3Y & K1TTT, hardly casual contesters. Those are both big contesters and know the rules.
>Now who are all these casual contesters everyone keeps referring to? The contest which is currently being discussed Stew Perry, a 160 meter contest. 160 meters is a 'man's' band. It is not a band for rejects from CB or guys who can only pass a test by memorizing the answers in a Q&A pool. Casual operators don't sit for hour after hours spotting 160 meters. Casual operators don't usually have 160 meter antennas mainly because of the size of a 160 meter aerial. Compromise aerials don't usually work very well on 160 either for receiving or transmitting.
>Why so much defending of casual operators, who don't really exist? Why so much defending the principle I can do whatever I want whenever I want? This thread started out with questions about cheating during contests.
>"Me thinks thou(you) protest/defend to much"
>My final comment this time on this subject.
>Merry Christmas
>MAL              N7MAL
>Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
>It's already tomorrow in Australia
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Bob Naumann - W5OV 
>  To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
>  Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 22:48
>  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions
>  "It doesn't say it's OK to spot if you are not actually in the contest."
>  This has to be the silliest comment posted on CQ-Contest for the year 2005.
>  How do contest rules apply in any way to someone who is *"not actually in
>  the contest"* ?
>  I hope that common sense and logic will begin to prevail in 2006.
>  MX & HNY to all!
>  Bob W5OV
>  _______________________________________________
>  CQ-Contest mailing list
>  CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list