[CQ-Contest] All of the speculation here

Ron Notarius W3WN wn3vaw at verizon.net
Wed May 18 07:51:17 EDT 2016


One comment...

With regards to:
< snip >
One of the things that strikes me, is that in his editorial, Randy used the word "recombine" as opposed to "combine."

That's right, assisted guys were originally included in with the non-assisted guys. Where was the outrage back then? Did that stop anybody from entering the contest? Nothing is stopping anyone from entering "their way," even if we went back to "one single operator category."
< snip >

If memory serves, the big argument at the time was whether or not the operators using technological Assistance should be classified as Single Op, or as Multi-Single entrants.  That was the Big Gray Area.  

So I personally would stop short of saying that there wasn't any... let's go with controversy rather than "outrage"... controversy about the entry classifications.  I would not want to imply that there wasn't any, since it was (in part) that very controversy that helped lead to the category split in the first place.

And I do agree with you on one other thing.  I'm actually enjoying, these days, operating in many contests without worrying about my entry category.  Makes many of them fun again, and when family matters come up (especially when one major contest coincides with my wife's birthday, which happens almost every year), I don't have to worry about keeping my priorities straight. Of course, if more of us did that, there'd be a lot less... controversy during the course of the year on this and other reflectors!

73, ron w3wn

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list