[CQ-Contest] Log checking questions

Bob Naumann - W5OV W5OV at W5OV.com
Mon Dec 19 09:36:50 EST 2005


Good try, but you can't deflect the criticism for this one.

Your assertion in this matter, along with your earlier condemnations of
legions of contesters as cheaters, AND your specious accusations of
mercenary contest sponsors - all without any evidence are par for the course
with you.  Zero credibility.

Let's revisit your most worthy "Silliest Comment on CQ-Contest for 2005"
award winner.  The reception and use of packet spots *by participants* in
the contest is the only area anyone should be concerned.  Regardless of
whether or not non-entrants are spotting participants continuously for the
24 hours of the contest, the *participants* should not be *receiving* those
packet spots.

Now, do you know of one *participant* in the Stew Perry TBDC who did
*receive* those packet spots and send in a log?

As is customary with your untenable indictments, I expect that you won't
have one callsign of a alleged cheater to promulgate.

(By the way, the runner-up for "Silliest Comment on CQ-Contest for 2005" was
the related pointing out that packet is not packet if it's via the Internet.
Watch for a special report from John Stossel on ABC's 20/20 as a "Give me a
break" story in 2006.)

Now, in all seriousness, there is a related issue that perhaps should be
discussed absent of accusations concerning packet use, and that is the
impact to the scores of those who do get spotted, by attracting more
non-entrant callers via their use of packet.  Then, there's the related
issue (my fave) of "cheerleading" where individuals recruit their friends in
either an overt or clandestine manner to spot primarily the individual
during a contest.  However, that discussion is a bit more cerebral than
this, so perhaps we should defer it until after New Year's?  Is this really
the issue Mal?

There is one good thing about all of this, and it occurred in a related
discussion of TBDC & "CWAC" (Contest within a Contest) which is:

(Trumpets) Da, da - da - dah!

The truly "Funniest Comment on CQ-Contest for the year 2005" which is this
from Pat WW9R:


I agree with you.  I don't like the whole "real time scoring" thing.  

I prefer to wait until after the contest to start feeling bad about how I


Good job Pat, and congratulations!  I laughed out loud when I read this.

Most ironic is that K3BU is part of it.

(Work on the spelling a little though Pat - feeling only has one 'L' - I
fixed it in this quote)

MX & HNY All!

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: N7MAL [mailto:N7MAL at CITLINK.NET] 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:29 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions

WOW I'm impressed I've been awarded the silliest comment of the year award
and been called ""amazingly fallacious.""
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
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

  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

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list