[UK-CONTEST] The writing on the wall-part 2

[G3SXW]

Clive,
This was my personal view about your cluster-paranoia, nothing to do with 
CQWW, which I did not mention.
Don't expect all contests to conform to your particular specifications. 
There are literally hundreds of contests. Vote with your feet.
To set your mind at rest I am unaware of any proposed CQWW rule-changes 
regarding Cluster.
73 de Roger/G3SXW.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clive Whelan" <clive.whelan at btinternet.com>
To: "G3SXW" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>; <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: [UK-CONTEST] The writing on the wall-part 2


> Roger
>
>
> You're position is untenable. On the one hand you make great
> play of dissing a cheat in CQWW, but then say that "it's a
> lost cause". CQ claim to have the software to catch the
> cheats, so what's the problem?
>
> I'll tell you what the problem is: catching cheats  and
> dissing them doesn't sell magazines, that's why it only
> featured in the small print this year; what sells magazines
> is a dumbed down ethos, where contest rules appeal to the
> lowest common denominator.
>
> If that's CQ magazine's position, just be honest about it
> like DARC. Then those of us who demur can QSY to some other
> aspect of our wonderful hobby.
>
>
> 73
>
>
> Clive
> GW3NJW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: G3SXW [mailto:g3sxw at btinternet.com]
> Sent: 14 February 2007 00:48
> To: Clive Whelan; UK-Contest
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] The writing on the wall-part 2
>
>
> Clive,
> Yes, you are paranoid about Cluster.
> You would ban all internet-connectivity for single-ops. But
> lines cannot be
> drawn. It's a lost cause - it cannot be uninvented. Nor can
> any of the other
> on-line tools which might infringe your definition of pure
> single-op.
> Let's also ban the XYL from bringing us tea.
> Just operate in ways with which YOU are comfortable. And
> enjoy it!
> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clive Whelan" <clive.whelan at btinternet.com>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:09 AM
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] The writing on the wall-part 2
>
>
>>I recently posted a reply from DARC regarding my whinge
>> about their failure to support a non-assisted category in
>> the WAE event, which indicates that they will maintain
> their
>> current position, and will even consider abandoning the
>> marking of non-assisted entries in the results table.
>>
>> I also quoted several other major events which have
> already
>> gone down that road, but noted that our transatlantic
>> cousins were still holding the line, although I still
> think
>> there is no smoke without fire with respect to the rumours
>> of ARRL's ( hotly disputed) consideration of global
> cluster
>> permission; perhaps I am paranoid but.....
>>
>> I had a dabble in CQ WPX RTTY at the weekend, although
> this
>> is not really my bag. Imagine my horror therefore when my
>> attention was drawn to the following snippet from the
> rules:
>>
>> <snip>Any form of DX alerting assistance is permitted in
> ALL
>> categories.<snip>
>>
>> I confess that I am not aware whether perhaps this is the
>> norm in CQ sponsored RTTY contests ( no doubt someone will
>> tell me), but either way it does nothing to make me any
> more
>> sanguinary about the future of the non-assisted
> categories.
>>
>> So forget about supporting petitions to Downing St. Get on
>> your soapbox ( the virtual one in your Cabrillo file) and
>> tell CQ what they can do with global cluster permission.
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> Clive
>> GW3NJW
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>
>
>