[CQ-Contest] New Category Suggestion

sbloom at acsalaska.net sbloom at acsalaska.net
Fri Sep 9 13:02:06 EDT 2016

I don't think he meant any harm.  It was just an unfortunate 
combination of a few things.  It was a new topic ..with [Spam] in the 
subject line, from someone who I don't remember posting previously, all 
put together, it seemed "Trollish."  I've seen it happen in other 
groups as well.  Nobody should be afraid of posting their opinion, nor 
should they get too offended if others disagree ..even vehemently.  My 
reaction was wrong, and I apologized.  I know NN4X signed off the 
list, I did ask him to reconsider.  
Steve KL7SB
p.s.  On a practical level, there is no way to implement an operating 
class by ownership.  There are so many permutations and constant 

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 08:00:15 -0600, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

       Maybe, but your opinion about the matter hold not more value than mine. 
We have endless arguments about the same things year in and year out. 
Why is this idea any different?

To you it was silly. Maybe others agree with the OP (original poster)
but might be afraid to even post. Could you blame them?

Should hired guns be classified in their own group? I didn't find his
post disrespectful to anyone. He simply was proposing that people that
build, maintain and own their station be judge similarly. 

Hired guns get the luxury of walking into a fully capable station and
have to have done a last minute repair, put up a last minute antenna and
they might be better rested than the station owner who came home to
something broken right before the contest. 

Should the station owner of a station using a hired gun be allowed to do
any work on the station if something were to break or malfunction? Why
should the hire gun get a built in repairman when the station
owner/operator is not afforded the same luxury? Hired guns as someone
else has mention can spend all their time working on operating while
owner operators have to spend time building and maintaining. Those are
choices we make freely. 

What is the problem talking about other ways to score or compare
scores? We have them constantly about CQ WW and trying to make it
appear more fair for people that do not live in propagation blessed areas. 

We can make the rules as simple or complex as we like as these are our

Do we really need to use the words silly, troll, etc. If you want to
comment on a post is it that difficult to do so with out insulting
people? Would people say these things to a stranger in person that you
might meet at Dayton? Most probably would not. Hiding behind our
computer screens does not give us the right to be jerks. 


On 9/8/2016 11:49 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> I saw it differently. It seemed to me that NN4X was being quite 
> disrespectful toward skilled operators, who by simple virtue of not 
> being able to afford a competent station of their own, should be 
> discriminated against if they get the opportunity to compete from a 
> better station. His suggestion would also open up an endless and 
> contentious argument of what exactly qualifies for such a category, 
> as at least a few replies here have already identified. 
> A silly suggestion isn't courage. 
> Dave AB7E
> On 9/8/2016 6:58 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> I understand the point that NN4X was making. Do people need to be 
>> arseholes when they don't necessarily agree?
>> I thought the purpose of this reflector was to discuss and debate 
>> ideas, concepts, etc. I didn't realize that I had to agree with a 
>> particular mantra to be a member of the list. 
>> This list has devolved into name calling and many are quite 
>> disrespectful of others opinions and comments. 
>> I guess this is what happens when people become old farts?
>> These posts just show that hams are just like everyone else. The 
>> disrespect shown toward others in the real world is about the same 
>> as in this reflector. I used to think Ham Radio people were better 
>> people, would never cheat, treated others as they would like to be 
>> treated. No longer. 
>> Is there a particular platform that members of this list must 
>> conform to in order to be accepted?
>> At least NN4X has the courage to make some suggestions. Most simply 
>> continue to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand. 
>> The value of this list continues to fade. 
>> W0MU
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list