[CQ-Contest] Remove that Word!

Paul J. Piercey p.piercey at nl.rogers.com
Thu Jun 12 15:35:52 EDT 2008

I've made that suggestion numerous times. If you can't define it, get rid of
it. Seems simple enough to me.

73 -- Paul VO1HE

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ward Silver
> Sent: 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) 
> > This 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 sponsors (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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list