[CQ-Contest] NAQP Categories

[Richard DiDonna]

How much simpler could NAQP be?  100 watts and no multi-multi machines to contend with.  

I broke into the top 10 last year with a single OB16 at 80 feet one one tower and a C3E on  second tower at 60 feet.  I did not have a superstation to work with.

73 Rich NN3W

> 
> From: <ku8e at bellsouth.net>
> Date: 2006/01/17 Tue AM 09:19:25 EST
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Categories
> 
> K5ZM wrote :
> 
> "Do that, and NA loses it's unique appeal. (IMO, YMMV) It becomes 'just
> another contest' with very little to differentiate it from all the other
> domestic tests. "
> 
> What's so unique about NAQP ???
> 
> The only unique thing I see is that it's just about the only domestic contest around where
> you can work everyone on every band. If I want to be serious why should I have to compete against
> some guy at a superstation ??  The only reason I even operate is because I like CW contesting. 
> Sooner or later I will get sick of my mediorce scores , which in my case is due to my hardware, and
> I won't bother to operate FT.
> 
> I'm sure there are others who share this opinion who don't even bother to get on the air for NAQP.
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>