[CQ-Contest] Earth to Ev ....

[Zack Widup]

Hi Ed et. al.,

OK, here is the e-mail I received from Tom Hogerty.

I've gotten tired of this conversation, so this is the last thing I will 
post on it.

73, Zack W9SZ

*************************************************
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:40:28 -0500
From: "Hogerty, Tom  KC1J" <thogerty at arrl.org>
To: Zack Widup <w9sz at prairienet.org>
Subject: RE: Sweepstakes check

Hi Zack,
Many amateurs like to let others know when they were first licensed. The
exchange during the SS gives them an opportunity to do so. There are,
however, many folks out there that don't remember what that date was or
choose not to divulge it for personal reasons. That's OK. For log
checking purposes it is important to use the same check number during
the entire contest.

73,
Tom Hogerty, KC1J
ARRL Contests

-----Original Message-----
From: Zack Widup [mailto:w9sz at prairienet.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:11 AM
To: Contest
Subject: Sweepstakes check

Hi,

I don't know if you watch the cq-contest reflector on internet, but
we've had an almost-raging controversy lately about whether the "check" in 
the SS exchange has to be "the year you were first licensed". There seem 
to be some people who feel this rule is set in stone and if you are
discovered using a different year than the "one you were first licensed"
you should be disqualified.

I myself am of the opinion that it is just a number; it doesn't impact
the other guy's score like using the wrong section would, nor does it
affect the category of competition you're in such as the precedence. So
I feel it's no big deal if you use a different number for the check.  One
club I was in [excerpted] didn't even know what year the club was first 
licensed and used a different number each year for at least three years 
that I know of.

So am I totally off-base in my view?  What would happen if you
discovered that I was using a year for the check that wasn't the year I 
was first licensed?

73, Zack W9SZ

*************************************************


On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Ed wrote:

> Ev Tupis wrote: ( I think )
> 
> > In regard to Item 3, the point was that *Hans* got the answer.  No one here would have known the answer except that he copied it to the list. 
> 
> -----------I hope I didn't just "miss" it but, all the wording  from
> Hans that I have seen refers to "The desk". While logical to assume
> he meant the Contesting director, that is an assumption without merit.
> 
> Why can't the ARRL just send a message to someone, have it quoted in
> it's entirety, and end this discussion.
> 
> I do not mean to criticize Hans in any manner, except perhaps for his
> choice of words.
> 
> 73
> Ed