[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

[w5ov at w5ov.com]

It is neither A nor B.

The point of these rules is simply that a single operator should do
everything himself.

Why is this such a difficult mystery to unravel?

Such a rule could have been written during spark gap days and it would
still be valid in 2058.

I think a review of the wording of the CQWW rule makes all of this
perfectly clear.

73,

Bob W5OV


> Ted,
>
> I choose A.
>
> And anyone who thinks otherwise should try this task...
>
> Write your own contest rules today (2008) that will still be valid in
> 2058.
> Or here, an easier one... define the Universe.  :-)
>
> Even our fore-fathers were not significantly prescient, having adopted the
> original Constitution in 1787 and amending it 27 times since then.
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz at comcast.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
>
>> Given that these rules have existed for a considerable period of time,
>> which is a more reasonable
>> expectation:
>>
>> A) That the authors of the ARRL rules intended the phrase "...spotting
>> assistance or nets (operating
>> arrangements
>> involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet, Internet,
>> etc)..."
>> was meant to cover
>> information gathered and reported from other humans
>>
>> - OR -
>>
>> B) That the authors of the ARRL rules were prescient enough to forsee
>> that
>> one day there may also be
>> non-human means by which stations could be detected and reported
>>
>> It would be nice to hear from someone involved in writing these.
>> Inquiring
>> minds want to know.
>>
>> 73, Ted W4NZ