[CQ-Contest] CQ WW split etc

Timothy Coker n6win73 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 17:00:25 EDT 2012

I agree with Steve here. The innovative part comes into play. I also
applaud the operation that relies on hardware and not possibly faulty
software interlocks. Worse yet would be the hand signal with multiple
non-interlocked stations.

I think Mike has a great point about letting guys go split if they feel
that it is necessary but definitely not on the anti-technologically
innovative MS crew.


Tim /N6WIN
On Aug 29, 2012 10:56 AM, "Steve London" <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/29/2012 08:42 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> > Are people afraid that by doing something different
> > that someone might have an advantage over you because you fail to
> > innovate or add flexibility to your operating style?
> >
> > Why don't we look at the real issues in the contest where Multi single
> > was established so that many ops could use ONE, yes ONE radio and take
> > turns using it.  What we have now are station out right cheating and
> > running multiple stations per band on the same band at the same time and
> > station where they have built technology to allow X number of people and
> > Xmitters to be used at the same time, which was completely contrary to
> > the intent of the rules way back when.
> So, let's say it's a multi-single but they are using many radios and many
> operators, but staying within the rules by using a transmitter interlock
> and not
> breaking the 10 minute or band-change-per-hour rules.
> Contrary to the intent of the rules ?
> Or showing ingenuity, innovation and flexibility to keep the operators
> interested ?
> Mike, you can't have it both ways.
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list