[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

Stan Stockton k5go at cox.net
Tue Jun 17 09:14:30 EDT 2008


I agree with Mark and others on this.

I believe the intent of the rule was that the single operator would tune 
his radio to find stations to work.  The source that would provide a 
list of stations to work, other than the operator tuning his radio to 
find stations, is immaterial.

The result is the same and it does not fall into the intent of a single 
operator unassisted entry if a list of stations appears on a bandmap for 
him to work.

If there had been exceptions that would be OK for a single operator to 
have a list of stations provided they would have been specifically 
listed.  The etc was, in my opinion,  added to encompass all other types 
of spotting that could not be envisioned at the time the rule was 

Stan, K5GO

> WC1M said:
>> (operating arrangements involving other individuals,
>> DX-alerting nets, packet, Internet, etc)
>> The phrase in parenthesis defines the terms ...
>> and it doesn't include anything like local Skimmer.
> Dick, I believe the phrase does include things "like local Skimmer" 
> and the
> "etc" drives it home.  To me the definition clearly includes Skimmer.
> Mark, N5OT
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date: 
> 6/16/2008 7:20 AM

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list