[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
Paul J. Piercey
p.piercey at nl.rogers.com
Fri Jun 20 07:17:52 EDT 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ve4xt at mts.net
> Sent: June 19, 2008 16:08
> To: Michael Keane K1MK; Mark Beckwith
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> Mike, K1MK wrote:> If we do not presume competence on the
> part of the writer as to how
> > the rules were constructed and do not rely upon standard usage when
> > reading the rules, then the rules have no objective meaning.
> > All we have to work with are the words of the rules. We
> cannot treat
> > the rules as if they were written by Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty
> > ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
> -- neither
> > more nor less.").
> This is EXACTLY why I can't fathom how anyone could argue
> that the WW rule "DX Alerting assistance of any kind..." is ambiguous.
> 73, kelly
Yet, here we are.
There are many who want to deem this, and other, new technology "assistance"
because it helps an operator make contacts more efficiently. This can be
said of much of the already accepted technology currently in use. Then there
are others (me included) that feel that "assistance" was spawned to deal
with human interaction through technology only. I regard the fact that
cluster use in certain contests puts you in the Multi-op category as clear
proof of that.
Until the word "assistance" is defined in no uncertain terms this argument
will never end. It doesn't matter how any of us define it. It only matters
how the contest sponsors define it and it should be the priority at this
time for them to come to some concensus and help end this debate.
Define it or get rid of it.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
More information about the CQ-Contest