[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

Michael Keane K1MK k1mk at alum.mit.edu
Tue Jun 17 09:03:42 EDT 2008

At 08:53 PM 6/16/2008, Mark Beckwith wrote:
>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.

Why would et cetera drive anything home? From Strunk & White's The 
Elements of Styles:


"Etc. Not to be used of persons. Equivalent to and the rest, and so 
forth, and hence not to be used if one of these would be 
insufficient, that is, if the reader would be left in doubt as to any 
important particulars. Least open to objection when it represents the 
last terms of a list already given in full, or immaterial words at 
the end of a quotation.

At the end of a list introduced by such as, for example, or any 
similar expression, etc. is incorrect."

Since there has been an over abundance of debate, it seems clear that 
readers are left in doubt about at least one important particular.

Presuming the competence of those who crafted the rule, their choice 
to use etc. indicates that the list has been specified in its entirety.

In such circumstances it would seem the correct meaning of the rule 
needs to be officially clarified, not just debated ad infinitum.

Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk at alum.mit.edu

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list