[CQ-Contest] Two points for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW?

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I also don't understand the comments about rights, etc.  I am what I 
would consider to be a conservative and one that would prefer that we 
get back to the US Constitution.  I would agree with you that we have 
allowed the Gov't to erode many of our liberties and rights.....however 
we are talking about a radio contest.  This is an event where you 
actively chose to participate.  Every other competition takes place at 
an event where everyone or judges can watch exactly what is going on.  
This is just not possible except in the WRTC format, which cannot happen 
for all the contests we have.

The comments lead me more down the path of what are you hiding?  I 
understand that a competitor may have stumbled across a certain opening 
to a certain part of the world that others might not have found or would 
expect but this does not seem to be the basis of your issue.

Transparency is best.  The more open we are the better.  There is 
nothing personal about Amateur radio communication that happen over 
airwaves that anyone can listen to.

W0MU

Mike W0MU

On 3/10/2013 10:17 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
> Ron,
>
> The place you lose me is when you claim that a contest log contains
> "personal or private information".
>
> I just don't follow this logic at all.
>
> What "specific personal information" would otherwise be in a submitted log?
>
> Your name and address?  That's already public information, so that can't be
> it.
>
>  From looking at way too many of these log files, I have never seen anything
> personal in nature divulged in a log, nor is there any requirement to do so
> by any contest sponsor.
>
> W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Notarius W3WN
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:55 AM
> To: n2ic at arrl.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Two points for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW?
>
> Strictly speaking, that is not my log.  That is a synthesis of what the
> computer "thinks" is my log, based on other submitted entries.
>
> And, at least technically, specific personal information that would be in my
> submitted log is not included in this synthesis.
>
> The broader point is that this demonstrates exactly what I've been talking
> about.  It is bad enough that, in general, our rights to privacy and
> confidentiality in personal matters is getting more eroded every day.  And
> it is unfortunate, to say the least, that others (wittingly or unwittingly)
> have conceded their rights, for what they are told is the 'greater good' --
> sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not.
>
> This demonstrates that there are those who have few if any reservations
> about making public others personal or private information... and then using
> it against the wishes of those individuals.
>
> Regardless... I know that I'm wasting my time discussing this with the
> majority who are active on this forum.  It is contrary to many opinions, and
> to many others, they are tired of hearing it.  So be it.
>
> But I am disappointed, to say the least, that you expect me to abandon my
> principles because someone else lacks scruples.
>
> I may be wrong.  But I am not intentionally a hypocrite.
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Steve London
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:35 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Two points for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW?
>
> Ron,
>
> IIRC, the primary reason you stopped submitting logs is because you
> objected to the logs becoming "public", viewable by anyone.
>
> Well, you can start submitting logs again, because despite your best
> effort, your log is public, anyway. See
> http://rate.pileup.ru/vlog.php?call=W3WN .
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> On 03/09/2013 05:09 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>> I see.  Thanks Barry.
>>
>> There are those of use who operate in the contest, but do not submit logs
>> for any of a variety of reasons.
>>
>> I guess our opinions aren't important then.
>>
>> Pity.  This used to be one of my favorite contests, too.
>>
>> 73
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest