[CQ-Contest] WARC Bands and Contesting: Aargh! FAQ Update

[Bob Naumann]

Embarrassed?  Over what?

Dave, normally you and I see things in pretty much the same way, so there
must be some confusion here over what the issue is.

First, I have no desire to put contests on the WARC bands - this is just not
necessary and proves nothing. Yes - not a good idea.

I'm also not advocating going against any agreements that have been in
place.  I am, however, totally against limiting contests to "segments" of
the bands and other stupid restrictions that we hear proposed from time to
time.

My point is entirely that the vocal minority anti-contest element needs to
be told to stop the juvenile complaining and to be happy with what they
have.  The problem is that their goal is to eliminate contesting.

Yes, that's right - they want to eliminate contesting.  It has nothing to do
with being fair at all.  

If you look at the reality objectively (as I detailed in my previous post)
they have exclusive allocations (the WARC bands) and they get virtually
contest-free use of the bands for over 80% of the weekends per year, not to
mention 100% of all weekdays.

So, the reality is that they're complaining and seeking to limit contesting
to even less bandwidth than what we already consume.  It's totally
ridiculous and by any measure unfair.

We need to fight back against this totally stupid, anti-contesting element.

They should be told that they should be happy with what they have and to
stop the baseless complaining and criticizing of contesters!  

By any measure, contesters use the bands for a much smaller portion of the
time than is available to them and they should face that fact.

Who says non-contesters are in a position where their wants are placed above
contesters?  Based on what?

It's absolutely ridiculous for contesters to be ashamed or embarrassed to
tell the truth and yes, to fight back.

73,

Bob W5OV



-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
David Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:36 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC Bands and Contesting: Aargh! FAQ Update


Say what?  Fight back??  The last thing contesters need is to get pig 
headed and pick a fight with other hams over agreements that have been 
in place for decades.  We don't occupy less than 20% of weekend activity 
because anybody else is preventing us from using more of it, and to 
claim that we need to "fight back" to use more of it is profoundly absurd.

You just made me embarrassed to be a contester.

Dave   AB7E


>
>
> On 08/07/13, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
>
> Since the WARC bands are contest-free bands, where's the balance?
>
> Where are the contesting-only bands?
>
> Of course, there are none. And, it would be absurd to presume that there
> should be.
>
> However, non-contesters are allowed to hold a similar absurd opinion and
> are in fact, encouraged by some to seek to have contest band segments
> established and the like in order to limit contest use of the bands.
>
> When will there be fairness? When will non-contesters realize that they
> have exclusive non-contest allocations and that they should stop
> complaining?
>
> Seriously, while there are contests pretty much every weekend, less than
> 10 weekends a year (less than 20% of the weekends) have major contests on
> them that dominate the bands and most of those are one mode at a time.
>
> Is less than 20% of the weekends really too much to ask for contesters ?
>
> Really?
>
> So, non-contesters get greater than 80% of the year without a major
> contest going on and they also get 3 (albeit small) bands where contest
> activity is precluded.
>
> Exactly how much would be enough for non-contesters? Hmmm?
>
> We need to fight back.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest