[CQ-Contest] FW: [UK-CONTEST] CQ magazine to withdraw contest sponsorship?

Tom Haavisto ve3cx at shaw.ca
Sun Apr 1 21:55:57 EDT 2007

Before we get too excited about this, please look at the date....  

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey at nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sunday, April 1, 2007 6:08 am
Subject: [CQ-Contest] FW: [UK-CONTEST] CQ magazine to withdraw contest sponsorship?

> I saw this on the UK reflector and thought I should share it here.
> Very unsettling indeed.
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Clive Whelan
> Sent: April 1, 2007 10:23
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] CQ magazine to withdraw contest sponsorship?
> I thought uk contesters might be interested in the following from 
> a meeting
> between the CEO of CQ magazine and the general manager of ARRL, 
> reported in
> the Washington Post. I am personally saddened by this news.
> " CQ magazine has sadly decided to withdraw support from all the 
> contests it
> currently sponsors. As well as the huge amount of adjudication work
> undertaken by our band of willing volunteers, they have recently 
> been the
> recipients of an increasing volume of complaints about conditions, 
> sometimesvirile, and occasionally abusive. In the current sunspot 
> minimum conditions
> entrants around the world have typically been unable to make few 
> if any QSOs
> on 28Mhz, and even 21Mhz has been very patchy. We are puzzled that the
> Amateur Radio community does not seem to realise that CQ magazine 
> has little
> control over  conditions, despite state of the art "ionosphere 
> warming"equipment and antennas installed at Hicksville N.Y. 
> However, it does seem
> that CQ magazine has become negatively associated with these poor
> conditions, and our circulation has suffered as a consequence. 
> While other
> magazines might  be happy with such a scenario, CQ magazine does 
> not wish to
> be associated with anything except the highest quality , both of 
> technicalarticles, but also the results of the contests it sponsors.
> Therefore, effective 4/1/2007 CQ magazine withdraws entirely from its
> contest sponsorship. We are anxious to point up that this is 
> purely a matter
> of suspension rather than termination, and the board of CQ 
> magazine will
> review this decision in 3-5 years time, and hopes to reinstate all 
> events at
> this time, subject to sufficient solar activity.
> Finally, we envision a bright future for contesting in the long term"
> The full text of the conversation may be seen at :
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
> dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=login&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-liveonline&applicationURL=
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/liveonline/?nid%253Droll_discuss
> 73
> Clive
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list