[CQ-Contest] This IS cheating, right?

Radio K0HB kzerohb at gmail.com
Sun Feb 23 10:38:21 EST 2014


I don't see the slope as slippery nor the boundary arbitrary as you suggest.

The aids which I think damaging are those which give you specific elements of the exchange for your log which you didn't gather yourself in real time off the air.

73, de Hans, K0HB/K7
🌵Sent from Arizona 🌞

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Bob Davis <bobnq3x at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, for pity's sake, no this tired old excuse for "logic."
> By your "logic," any operating aid beyond a certain arbitrary point you
> seem to have set without really defining it is questionable.
> Okay, let's play that game of Slippery Slope and roll back at least a
> generation of advancement. What other operating aids would you ban? DSP?
> After all, it can help you hear better. Gain antennas? After all, they make
> signals louder. "They" didn't have those things when contesting started, so
> they must be unethical - if your logic is taken to an extreme.
> If you don't like a particular technology, don't use it. But don't have the
> staggering arrogance to presume to tell other people they're wrong for so
> doing.
> 73 de Bob WP2XX
> On Feb 23, 2014 10:34 AM, "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately that toothpaste is out of the tube, but the software
> authors did contesting a terrible wrong when they coded in crutches like
> auto-fills and super check partial.
>> 73, de Hans, K0KB
>> 🌵Sent from Arizona 🌞
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Rick Lindquist, WW1ME
>> <ww1me at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> > Okay, conditions for the CQ 160 SSB have been extremely noisy for many
> of us
>> > along the Eastern Seaboard. Operators have routinely been CQing in the
> face
>> > of several callers, and few seem to be able to hear me, although I did
> snag
>> > HK1NA and a guy in Iowa, so the antenna system still works, such as it
> is.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I digress. A station came back to me, but I could not copy his
> state
>> > among the static crashes, so I asked for a repeat. The op comes back:
> "Okay,
>> > thanks, Eric, for Maine." Well, two problems here: (1) I had not given
> him
>> > his report yet (and never did), and (2) I never use my given name on or
> off
>> > the air - I go by "Rick." The logical conclusion here is that he had his
>> > logger set to look up on the Internet stations he was working, and he
> got my
>> > given name AND my exchange info from a call sign database.
>> >
>> > I don't expect to log more than a few dozen Qs in this event, but his
> will
>> > not be among the ones I submit, even though it was a needed mult.
>> >
>> > Rick, WW1ME
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list