[CQ-Contest] CAC ..... was "radio-sport.net web site or, copy and paste journalism

Sun Oct 2 06:28:58 PDT 2011

Paul,

With all due respect for your 5+ decades of contesting, the reason your
posts have not been forwarded is because you keep making the same baseless
claims that make little sense and have no basis in fact.

To the contrary, you have not been ignored at all - in fact you have had
several long interchanges with many members of the contest committees who
have been striving to understand what you are talking about - and I am one
of these. I went back and forth with you numerous times and you still don't
get it. You are very stubborn and seem to refuse to listen to the facts.

Nothing has changed. Your claims are just dead wrong and you refuse to
listen to anyone.

This has been going on literally for years. Aren't you growing tired of it
yet?

Here's what I said to you in an email from April of 2009:

************************************
Paul,

I'm not sure why you have decided to expand our friendly little discussion
between you me and Mal to include a lot of others (including the ARRL?), but
I am going to end my participation with a few summary comments. 

First, please leave me out of any further discussion (do not copy me) as I
have already wasted hours of my precious time reading all of your verbose,
repetitive ranting and it has become apparent that unless your demands are
met, you don't want to hear the truth. 

You also seem to be of the perspective that your opinion should completely
eliminate the authority position of the contest sponsor to suit you. This is
absurd of course.

You again mention the OT6L qso. I already said: "So, let's presume that we
add the OT6L QSO back, you gain 12 points in your final score. I don't think
that makes any difference - does it"? You are correct that this one qso
should not have been deducted and penalized from your log. Add 12 points to
your score. You should have had 1,095,953 instead of 1,095,941. The station
ahead of you had 1,097,550. So, no change to your ranking and as I also
said, it does not make any difference.

You are sadly 100% incorrect about how the penalties are applied. The points
are deducted from your final score. This is what is done. Let me say it
again, this *is* what is done. There is nothing to address, and here I am
getting back to you on it. You are just plain wrong.

As I told you earlier today you were not reading your UBN report correctly -
thinking you lost points that you did not lose. The 8J3YAGI qso is the one I
showed you as the specific example of your error. Even after this, you are
apparently still reading the UBN report incorrectly. There is no band on
which you were penalized for 6 qsos as you again claim. I would have been
glad to help you with reading the report, but you are not interested in
reading it correctly since that does not align with your objective of
continuing your rant. You said "My minor misunderstanding of the UBN report
is not the issue here". I disagree - I think your lack of understanding is
THE MAJOR issue. 

You don't think that CQ should decide the zones? They are the CQ zones! Who
else but who created them should decide what they are? No one is playing
games. As I also explained to you, some people think they are in, or feel
that they should be in a different zone than they are actually in. 99.9% of
all entrants report the correct zone, so this is not a problem for any of
them. There is nothing secret. Look at a CQ Zone map and you can see what
zones are where. 

Your KP4EJ problem is a red herring in the discussion since there is no log
submitted by KP4EJ and there is no mention of the qso or the zone mult being
removed from your log in the UBN report! So, why are you complaining about a
qso that was not reported as costing you anything in the UBN report? I'm
stumped by this one.

Nothing is "secret" in the log checking process. None of it is public
information however. Not divulging the details of the log checking process
or data files used in the log checking process to you or any other entrant
is within the rights of the contest sponsor to do. Your claim that you
should get to review the process is out of line and inappropriate. If you
don't like how the contests are run, don't participate.

Oh, and "Cabrillo" is the file format - it is not the log checking system. I
know you have been told this before and have refused to recognize this too.

73,

Bob W5OV

************************
In addition, here's some comments from another person who you have wasted
the precious time of with your endless and repetitive rant:

" Paul has been on a lunatic rant about Cabrillo for many years.  He got 
pissed off at CQWW a couple years ago because the log checkers 
disallowed some mults as Paul defined them, and so every couple of years 
he goes on a rant to ARRL officials, CAC members, etc.  It unfortunate 
that he doesn't know what he's talking about (and won't listen to 
anybody who tries to enlighten him).  Most of us unfortunate enough to 
be on his distribution list have given up trying to reason with him and 
simply ignore his e-mails".

***************************************************
You want the truth? The comments above represent the truth.

However, for you to continue to malign the volunteer contest sponsors or the
volunteer moderators of this list as if they are treating you unfairly is
baseless, totally uncalled for and just plain wrong.

You've gotten way more attention than your baseless claims deserve and you
should stop it.

73,

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of N4XM Paul D.
Schrader
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 12:58 AM
To: vr2bg at harts.org.hk; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CAC ..... was "radio-sport.net web site or, copy
and paste journalism

Brett,

OK.  I wonder how long this will last?

I was complaining about the defective Cabrillo logging system.  Everything
I said was the truth.
After 5 decades plus of contesting, I thought I was entitled.

73

Paul  N4XM

At 04:38 AM 10/1/2011 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul:
>
>> In the past my posts that I commented about were absolutely blocked by
the
>> reflector caretakers.
>
>As I expected.
>
>> One of 2--K1KI and the guy who used to write the contest column for CQ.
>
>And yes, the other is K1AR.
>
>BTW, your reply was to me & not the list.  Not much point in two people 
>talking to themselves about the censorship... they made the mistake of 
>letting us get a foot in the door, let's take advantage of it. ;^)
>
>73, Brett/p.
>
>> At 02:28 AM 10/1/2011 +0000, you wrote:
>>> ZL2TZE added:
>>>
>>>> Look at the REPLY address when making a reply in THIS FORUM !!! all
>>>> REPLIES
>>>> go to the SENDER of the message you are
>>>> replying to and also I note that any message with anything but TEXT 
>>>> in it
>>>> doesn't get through .. PYPHON rulz :-(
>>>>
>>>> Make sure that you check the reply address and send TEXT only !!!
>>>
>>> I receive the digest, which does not have a reply-to header - so replies
>>> to that rely on the poster's mail client using the address of the sender
>>> of the digest.
>>>
>>> My guess is that those who do not receive the digest receive something
>>> that contains a reply-to header that has the list & the original
>>> poster's address in it. I say that because sometimes I get replies from
>>> folks to my posts here & sometimes their reply does not appear on the
>>> list (but I see what they had tried to post as it was also directly
>>> addressed to me). I rather doubt that every single time, every single
>>> person hits the reply-to-all button.
>>>
>>> No HTML to be seen in any of those messages - instead the only
>>> explanation I can think of is that the censors censored that person's
>>> post. The last time that happened was when I pointed out that maybe
>>> there was abuse of CEPT in contests & I found it amusing that the
>>> censors stopped a reply by a prolific participant here that seemed to
>>> indicate he thought the oft-mentioned "boy & his radio" does not need
>>> any licence or authorization to operate.
>>>
>>> If this post is also censored, then everyone I added to the distribution
>>> will know it happened. Usually, only the poster knows because like a CQ
>>> WW entry, it vanishes from the results. On rare occasions, the censors
>>> even say something about it to the censored. Maybe VE5RA & N4XM would
>>> be so kind & let us know if they thought their missing posts could be
>>> due to ZL2TZE's suggested reply-to or embedded HTML issues.
>>>
>>> 73, ex-VR2BG/p.
>>>
>>>> -------Original Message-------
>>>>
>>>> From: N4XM Paul D. Schrader
>>>> Date: 09/30/11 14:53:46
>>>> To: vr2bg at harts.org.hk; ":"@contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CAC ..... was "radio-sport.net web site 
>>>> or, copy
>>>> and paste journalism
>>>>
>>>> You are correct. I have had submissions to the reflector blocked.
>>>> And have been ignored at ARRL and CQ at times.
>>>>
>>>> Paul N4XM
>>>>
>>>> At 03:37 AM 9/25/2011 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>> W5OV said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have forums like CQ Contest and others where the public can
express
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> opinions freely - and they (we) do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody controls what can be said on cq-contest & as just noted by
>>>>> E73M, sounds like posts are still disappearing like entries in CQ WW
>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is nothing else like cq-contest that I am aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a whole, the way things in amateur radio (not just radiosport) are
>>>>> done is quite authoritarian & will be familiar to anyone unfortunate
to
>>>>> live where that is how things are done. We are to know what we are
>>>>> told, who decides this & everything else is not us & they do so from
>>>>> some distance from those they rule over - a model for going about 
>>>>> things
>>>>> that man improved upon centuries ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> (AR) [didahdidahdit], ex-VR2BG/p.
>>>>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest