[CQ-Contest] 4U1 or 4U2, Methinketh rational arguments are for naught

[Hank Greeb]

Seems to me that CQ WPX wants to "do it their way. " Tis certainly among 
the prerogatives of how the contest is organizes. Alas, neither 
tradition nor past precedent holds water with the current "GRAND POOBAH 
of rules interpretation and enforcement." So, it appears to me that all 
the bits and bytes go into the bit bucket.

Maybe we should find out who writes the rules for the CQ WPX and other 
CQ contests, and prevail on the person or these people, rather than 
beating our keyboreds to peaces along the current track.

I assume that there IS a person or group who wrote the rules, and a 
similar person or group who could, if presented with logical reasoning, 
change the rules.

My "delete key" is getting toward the end of its useful life deleting 
the vast (considerably more that 50% vast) number of (often redundant) 
messages  about the 4U1 calls.

72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time

On 10/28/2017 12:00 PM, cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:50:20 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Terry Zivney <n4tz at arrl.net>
> To: "Masa Miura, AJ3M" <masa.miura.aj3m at gmail.com>, 	CQ-Contest
> 	Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX
> 	Contest?
> Message-ID: <652088798.5826543.1509144620772 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Masa,
> I quote from my message:
>
> "Since 4U1 prefixes can be in multiple countries, rule V.C.1 would also apply. The DXCC list includes 4U1UN and 4U1ITU as separate entities. So, the 4U1 prefix does not denote the country of operation. This rule states:
> "A station operating from a DXCC entity different from that indicated by its call sign is required to sign portable." Because the 4U1WB callsign does not reflect the DXCC entity of USA, it is required to sign portable." <snip>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com