[UK-CONTEST] CQWW SSB UK high finishers

[Jonathan G0DVJ]

OK  - lets try and finish this one off with clarifications ...  since I 
seem to have excited a few people with my earlier comments!   I must say 
that I find the responses somewhat disappointing still!
(Apologies to others on the list for the bandwidth - if anyone mentioned 
really wants to continue the discussion further, maybe we will move it 
off the list).

First to Fred ...
On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 07:38  pm, Fred Handscombe wrote:
> Jonathon
> Set your sights high, not low!

Err thanks Fred (and well done with Andy for your efforts in WRTC btw) - 
we do set our sights high and indeed improve year on year with all the 
events we do, but I am simply realistic - we have very inexperienced 
people, virtually no contest-grade kit available to us, and we 
deliberately compromise greatly in the 48 hr events to achieve a 
suitable balance of fun versus discipline and therefore get folk out 
participating.  We were stunned to collect the Aerial Trophy for Club 
Calls in 2000 - an example of how we don't set our sights low.

Secondly ... Don ...

On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 07:47  pm, Donald Field wrote:
> Tongue in cheek to an extent Jonathon, but there's a serious point at 
> issue here.

Yes and I thought I acknowledged your point about how they run their 
business.

> So hold you fire and all will be revealed!

I wasn't trying to fire at anyone!   Just asked for my group's result!
The pertinent point in my previous mail was about participation being 
suggested on the basis of subscription.  The fact is that it *isn't* at 
present - howsoever CQ Mag chooses to run/finance its publishing, so I 
didn't think some of the people in a little group like mine who bother 
to participate would think much of any inference that they should 
subscribe!


And finally ... to Clive  ...

On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 09:12  pm, Clive Whelan wrote:
> Having started all this off(!), perhaps I may be permitted a few
> words. What Don and Fred have said is perfectly correct,

I know!  I wasn't suggesting that they were wrong on the factual 
description of the business model in use.

> Putting on my ( former) professional hat, the copyright issue is
> reasonably clear.  <2 paragraphs of understood stuff omitted>
>  Thus Don is never in any jeopardy with what he does in RadCom, 
> although possibly I  could be judged more harshly. I am quite 
> comfortable with what I have done so far, but would not go further in 
> the short term

I never suggested there was any copyright issue with Don's (welcome) 
efforts in RadCom!
However as you feel you may be treading a tightrope, I won't jovially  
say anything about not limiting an emailed summary to the highest UK 
finishers in future - although I may take up your kind offer of a 1-1 
Q&A on my own group's score instead!   Cheers.

> In this context perhaps I could mention the forthcoming WAE contests,

Thanks - I know!  I received their excellent booklet for our effort last 
year!

> Please remember the old maxim, if you don't like the message, don't 
> shoot the messenger.

Like I said above to Don, I never fired a shot !


Cheers all !   73

Jonathan G0DVJ
--          -