[CQ-Contest] CQ WW split etc

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Wed Aug 29 14:13:02 EDT 2012

You make my point.  Why is split operation a problem and the MS solution 
is not?

Mike W0MU

W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com

On 8/29/2012 11:01 AM, Steve London 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