[CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160

[KB3LIX at comcast.net]

Yes, I get it Ron,
but in the grand scheme of things, if the little guys
like US were NOT in a contest, ther big gun scores would
SUCK big time.
There are just so many big guys around. Once the 
biggies work the biggies, WE make the difference.

Have a great Turkey Day in Castle Shannon !!!!

73   bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
To: KB3LIX at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:57:59 AM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160

Haven't you figured it out yet?

The big guns don't care about us little pistols.  They want us to show up,
work them, and then go away.

How dare any of us suggest that their brilliant idea sucks rotten eggs?

Have a happy thanksgiving

73

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
KB3LIX at comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:22 PM
To: Doug Scribner; Contest, CQ
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160

I'm one of those 100w and a vertical guys,
and darn straight we appreciate those SO-LP certificates
for our sections/call districts.
That is what keeps me going in these slugfests.


bill     KB3LIX

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Scribner" <dscribner at myfairpoint.net>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 5:03:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160

Bill,

You are right... Us little guys do cherish those Section and Division 
certificates!

Doug - K1ZO

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Cqtestk4xs at aol.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO (A) in ARRL 10/160


> Fewer catagories?  Nah.  We forget about the little guys  who use a
> vertical and 100W.  They cherish the third place finish single  band 
> 10meter LP
> assisted certificate in CQWW for the fourth district.  For  us big guns 
> its
> ZZZZZZZZZ, but to them it's important.
>
> We should all remember when those trivial certificates got the  premier
> places on our walls in the shack....all because there were lots of 
> categories.
>
> Bill K4XS
>
>
> In a message dated 11/27/2013 11:39:58 A.M. Coordinated Universal Ti,
> pokane at ei5di.com writes:
>
> On  27/11/2013 05:15, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
>> It is too bad the ARRL  did not take the forward looking position and use
>> this opportunity to  allow all single ops to use spotting assistance.
> These
>> contests  would benefit from less categories rather than more.
>
> And why has K5ZD  not already done the same for "his"
> contest - CQWW?  It's because a  recent survey made it
> clear that we, the SO entrants, didn't want  it.
>
> The only benefit of this move would be to CQ and ARRL.
> As  contest sponsors, they would be relieved of the
> unwanted responsibility of  identifying which single
> ops used spotting assistance from other  operators.
> Wasn't that once known as Multi-Op?  :-)
>
> Fewer  categories?  Yes, why not?  Let's take the
> forward looking  position and combine power levels.
> And what about "classic"  categories?   Well, it's
> obvious - real men don't need time  off.
>
> 73,
> Paul  EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest