[CQ-Contest] ONE radio, two operators??

[Joe]

I really like that idea! Single "Operator" but multiple "Operators"

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 10/27/2014 3:18 AM, Oliver Dröse wrote:
>
> Why not an Overlay category for "true" M/S like there is for SO 
> Classic? Might be a worthwhile idea without needing to change the 
> rules themselves, impact on records, a.s.o.
>
> 73, Olli - DH8BQA
>
> Contest, DX & radio projects: http://www.dh8bqa.de
>
>
> Am 26.10.2014 03:29, schrieb Paul Stoetzer:
>> I do wish there were a category for multiple operators taking shifts
>> operating a single radio. I have no problem with the M/S category, 
>> but it'd
>> be nice to have a "true" M/S category too.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>> On Friday, October 24, 2014, <k2qmf at juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie K4VUD,
>>>
>>> DUMD is in the eyes of the beholder!
>>>
>>> Maybe us "second level pistols" enjoy operating M/S.
>>> I'm sorry that you don't see the enjoyment in contesting!
>>> See you on the WARC bands some day!  Don't hold your breath...
>>>
>>> Swiss cheese, 73, Sal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:57:52 +0700 Charles Harpole <hs0zcw at gmail.com
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> writes:
>>>> Tnx KR2Q....  Now I remember why I thot the Multi One category is
>>>> dumb.  I
>>>> see that it does give the second op something to do in addition to
>>>> sleep,
>>>> but really kills off the idea of ONE op and ONE radio to which the
>>>> category
>>>> NAME implies.   The rule that I have finally paid attention to
>>>> appears to
>>>> be a cheap way for second level pistols to APPEAR to compete with
>>>> the first
>>>> level pistols.  More and more as I reawaken to the contest rules I
>>>> understand why the whole things are designed by big pistol ops and
>>>> why many
>>>> other operators opt out of contesting.  I also refer to rules which
>>>> make
>>>> huge Asia equal to EU.
>>>>
>>>> Baloney, 73, Charly
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, <kr2q at optimum.net <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Charly,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you have read it correctly.  It has been this way for over 3
>>>> decades.
>>>>> See my article in CQ from August 1981, where M/S is elaborated.
>>>>> It was that way even before my article.  This article is a bit
>>>> dated, so
>>>>> for
>>>>> up to date information, see the 2 links below.
>>>>>
>>>>> See: http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Also see the Multi-Single FAQ: http://www.cqww.com/rules_faq.htm
>>>>> Scroll about half way down the above cited page.
>>>>>
>>>>> GL!
>>>>>
>>>>> de Doug KR2Q
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <javascript:;>
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Charly, HS0ZCW
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <javascript:;>
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Map Your Flood Risk
>>> Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
>>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/544a8a35684f3a352e09st04vuc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <javascript:;>
>>> 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
>
>