[CQ-Contest] New Contesting Classification

[Paul O'Kane]

My email below to W1VE of Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, included
in W1VE's post to cq-contest, was the first in a series of personal
messages between us, not copied to cq-contest, and without any
reference to cq-contest in their Subject line.  In addition,
no one can mistake an email with the first line in the message
being "Hi Gerry" (or likewise) as anything but a personal message.

In replying to my personal message, W1VE has added cq-contest as
a recipient.  This could not have been accidental and, as such,
is a wilful breach of mailing-list etiquette.

I reserve the right to publish the contents of all emails
between W1VE and myself today.

73,
Paul EI5DI





On 13/09/2016 16:02, Gerry Hull wrote:
> Ah, Paul... You like to use only selective facts, my friend.
>
> The internet is connected to a radio.  You like to leave that out.  
> Without the ionosphere, the communication would not happen.
>
> BOOM!  blows your factual discussion right out of the water.  
> Inconvenient fact, huh?
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE





>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com 
> <mailto:pokane at ei5di.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Gerry,
>
>     This is quoted from an article by David Hare - The Guardian 3
>     September 2016
>
>      "In an internet age it is, at first glance, democratic to say that
>      everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is surely true. It
>      is however a fatal step to then claim that all opinions are equal.
>      Some opinions are backed by fact. Others are not. And those that
>      are not backed by fact are worth considerably less than those
>     that are."
>
>      "There are some subjects about which two points of view are not
>      equally valid. We are entering, in politics especially, a post-
>      factual era in which it is apparently permissible for public
>      figures to assert things without evidence, and then to justify
>      their assertions by adding "Well, that's my opinion" - as though
>      that in itself was some kind of justification. It isn't. And such
>      charlatans need to learn it isn't."
>
>     I expect you agree with those two paragraphs above.  If not,
>     there's nothing more to be said.
>
>     If you do agree, then please consider these facts.
>
>     1.  Remote operators are at all times communicating over the
>         internet.
>
>     2.  Without the internet, there would be no communications
>         whatsoever with other operators who are not on the
>         internet.
>
>     If you disagree with either or both, then please say why.
>     If you can't or won't say why, then there's nothing more
>     to be said.
>
>     If you do agree with them, please explain why remote
>     operation should not be described as hybrid communications.
>
>     Your friends N6TR, K7JR, W7RN,W4AAW, KL9A, NK7U, SK3W, SM2O,
>     PR1T, W1UE, W1KM, K2LE, VY1JA, K1TTT, W2RE, WW2DX, 4X6TT,
>     PY2SEX, 9K2IC, AA3B, VE4EA, K9YC, K9CT, WA6HHQ may be able
>     to help with your answers.
>
>     If I don't hear from you, I will assume it's because you,
>     or they, have nothing to say :-)
>
>     73,
>     Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>