[CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and WRTC

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I don't believe anything.  I have ZERO facts from either side.

Can you prove the corruption charge you just leveled?  That is quite 
serious.

The bottom line is that CQ has put these people in charge of the contest 
they do the best they can.  I know most of these people and doubt they 
have any thing against you or any other entrant. Getting mad and casting 
allegations at the committee leads me to wonder more about those that do 
this.

I am sure you had a chance to argue your case to them and you either 
didn't or lost.

Nobody here  can change that outcome.

W0MU


On 2/21/2017 12:03 PM, 5B4ALX - Alessandro wrote:
>
> I have nothing to justify why I did nothing. stop you, please, to 
> continue to justify what a false and corrupt Committee makes finding 
> excuses and hypothetical allegations to those who are just a victim of 
> bad management of the contest for obvious personal reasons.
> in any case the stations were disqualified with ridiculous reasons, 
> always The proof wixh absolved stations were not accepted and often 
> censored online not to make public what the committee did.
> the strength of the committee and its illegal actions lies in the mass 
> presence of people like you who believes in what he says like your own 
> rather than what other people, often foreigners, demonstrate with 
> concrete evidence.
>
> Sent from Sony Xperia™
>
>
>
> ---- W0MU Mike Fatchett ha scritto ----
>
> I can't believe people cheat in radio contests.  Shame on them. Ops that
> are fantastic padding logs, power violations too many to mention, remote
> receivers across the globe, self spotting and on and on for what?
>
> A 50 dollar wooden plaque or a piece of paper with fancy lettering on it.
>
> Once again we have heard one side of the argument.  Does anyone know
> what proof CQ has in this case.  Maybe there is much more to this story.
>
> In computer gaming, every time a cheater that has been caught who goes
> public to argue his case, each and every case that person was proven to
> be in the wrong.   Going public is the last hope to get a bunch of
> sympathy from people that have ZERO facts.
>
> For the record IP spoofing is incredibly easy.  Who cares if you have a
> static address.  It means nothing and proves nothing.  The young hacker
> modding crowd have been using IP spoofing for years and years.
>
> Please stop trying to justify bad behavior.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> .
> On 2/21/2017 8:17 AM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
> > I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest as well if anyone has
> > broken the rules and has been unmasked.
> > if someone did not break the rules, and is accused of having done 
> so, has
> > clear and irrefutable evidence of not having done and is still 
> qualified,
> > this I call it "decide in advance and deliberately to exclude 
> someone from
> > the rankings."
> >
> > about your sentence: "They usually have some pretty solid evidence. The
> > WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ." well ... I 
> can tell
> > you that in my case they have an ip that is not located in my area, 
> which,
> > as belonging to a range of dynamic IP is in turn assigned to different
> > users on the network, which can not in any way attributable 
> specifically to
> > me.
> > I have a contract with the static IP Internet provider signed three 
> years
> > ago, an IP that never changes, and that is only assigned to my station.
> > Now I ask: "who have secure and unassailable proof of something?"
> >
> > This is their strength, their luck: there are many people who can not
> > believe that the committee is acting improperly and therefore 
> assumes that
> > they are always right, even in these cases as plugging your eyes or 
> putting
> > your head under the sand like ostriches but it is not so
> >
> > 2017-02-21 4:43 GMT+01:00 Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net 
> <mailto:ku8e at bellsouth.net>>:
> >
> >> I feel bad for anyone who gets DQ'ed in a contest. That being said 
> I'm 100
> >> percent sure that the CQWW contest committee doesn't take the 
> decision to
> >> disqualify someone lightly. Especially if it's someone in a position to
> >> quality for a WRTC slot. They usually have some pretty solid 
> evidence. The
> >> WRTC committee makes the rules for qualifying not CQ.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest