[CQ-Contest] Remove that Word!
w8aks55 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 12:40:31 EDT 2008
Ward, I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is the best solution
I've seen with all the bs that has been floating around this reflector. My
delete key is getting worn out.
Thanks for a livable solution.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Ward Silver
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 15,23
To: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Remove that Word!
> Ron is correct. If the contesting community cannot agree what "Assisted"
> means, it's fruitless to try to fabricate contest rules. (Sorry Randy)
> term needs to be defined first, then the rest will fall into place. And I
> don't think the contesting community can define it for the contest
> (Sorry again Randy). The definition/clarification needs to come from the
> sponsors themselves.
> 73 de Bob - K0RC in MN
I've got a better idea - how about we get **RID** of the word "assisted"
entirely? It is far too vague to be of any use when we are really talking
about sources and movement of information. I suggest SO and SO-Unlimited if
we're to have two categories. If three, then SO, SO-Plus, and SO-Unlimited.
Then the sponsors can state the definitions and there won't be any arguing
about what constitutes "assistance." The next debate will be about what
"single" and "operator" mean, of course.
Even better - maybe the categories should be named Red, Blue, and Green so
the category name is removed from the debate completely and thoroughly.
73, Ward N0AX
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
More information about the CQ-Contest