[UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 78, Issue 50 Old Gits Vs Young Gits G3LDI

[Christopher Soames]

Well I never Roger, you finally admitted it Hi Hi.

I don't know where I sit though ( in which group OLD or YOUNG GIT) since 
I am always seeking advice from you, joined your CW class (and have not 
looked back since). Listened to hours of your GB2CW broadcasts on 
145.250 Tuesday & Thursday 2000Hrs, and Sunday mornings as well, over 
here in Norfolk.

I am a member of the Local Club.

I am capable of doing nothing myself expertly except house work and cooking!

I know if it's cloudy it means Jim G3YLA has got it wrong. Nothing to do 
with propogation!

So where do I sit in your world? *to young to be an OLD git*    *to 
inquisitive to be a YOUNG git*??

ps Please send me a score for punctuation.

Chris
G0TZZ







uk-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> Send UK-Contest mailing list submissions to
> 	uk-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	uk-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	uk-contest-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of UK-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Websites and all that (Peter Bowyer)
>    2. July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits (gm4fam at tiscali.co.uk)
>    3. Re: July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits (David Barber)
>    4. Re: Websites and all that (Ray James)
>    5. Re: Websites and all that (Stewart Rolfe)
>    6. Re: Websites and all that (Don Field)
>    7. Old Gits vs Young Gits (Roger Cooke)
>    8. Re: July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits (Peter Bowyer)
>    9. Re: July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits (David Barber)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:30:37 +0100
> From: Peter Bowyer <peter at bowyer.org>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Websites and all that
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<56152ae90906280430r4b796396laff9c6668a6a7ee at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> 2009/6/28 Don Field <don.field at gmail.com>
>   
>> So, to go back to the beginning. If you find obvious broken links, let
>> someone know. On other matters, don?t hold your breath.
>>     
>
> I'd add: Instead of ranting about what's wrong and deriding the
> efforts of hard-working volunteers, ask yourself if there's a more
> constructive approach that might help get things the way you think
> they should be more quickly.
>
> Peter G4MJS (former volunteer, in several capacities)
>
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: peter at bowyer.org
> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:06:35 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
> From: "gm4fam at tiscali.co.uk" <gm4fam at tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <9133786.1246190795476.JavaMail.root at ps33.mc.tiscali.sys>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8"
>
> Thank-you Don G3XTT for pointing out a great many home truths - well 
> worth repeating from time to time if only to remind / educate these 
> individuals that they are having a go at unpaid volunteers (not paid 
> professionals), and are doing nothing but attempting to undermine a 
> huge amount of really excellent work done largely as a labour of love.
> Wouldn't it also be just dandy if some of these same snipers came out 
> from behing their trees and actually did something constructive for 
> others if they think they can do better?  (I couldn't emulate the IOTA 
> contest website in a thousand years).
>
> Thanks also to fellow Clive NJW for the very wise and well chosen 
> words.
>
> 73 Cris
> GM4FAM (now leaning on the zimmer and shuffling towards his bathchair 
> )
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Value your online security: Get 50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc 
> _______________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:51:30 +0100
> From: "David Barber" <david.barber at dbelectronics.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <B39374E60D394F7EB1EFD9B9F7066CA3 at DBXPPPOR>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Few things annoy me more than the recourse to 'volunteer' status as a
> justification or excuse for inadequacies of whatever nature.
>
> For any environment, yes we should be mindful of their (the volunteers) good
> work, perhaps even humbled by a few, but refrain from passing constructive
> criticism or drawing attention to errors, or just the plain stupid, we
> should not.  Volunteering for a job does not exonerate one from criticism
> nor does it grant the right to ignore the input of other interested parties.
>
> If no one makes an observation, how are things to be addressed or moved on?
> Do we just assume that the volunteer will 'get round to it' at some point or
> do we, with the best intentions, provide input on which they can build?
>
> Too often the 'volunteer' excuse is used in conjunction with 'if you think
> you can do better...'  Expressing an opinion or making a suggestion does not
> signify an attitude of superior capability nor does it (in most cases)
> suggest a personal attack, it is merely something we are all entitled to do,
> something we should consider of others and a right for which we should all
> be grateful.
>
> David
> G8OQW
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:16:16 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ray James <gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Websites and all that
> To: UK Contest <uk-contest at contesting.com>, Don Field
> 	<don.field at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <680606.39972.qm at web24101.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Don Field <don.field at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Running RSGB contests costs about 10p per member per year.
>>     
> It only happens because of voluntary effort (and frankly, with some
>   
>> of the sniping which I see on here, I wonder that anyone volunteers when
>> they could be contesting or spending time with their families).
>> So, to go back to the beginning. If you find obvious broken
>> links, let someone know. On other matters, don?t hold your breath.
>>     
>
> I understood this thread to be about the websites and their links.
> I can usually find what I'm looking for without too much of a problem so it was of little concern.
> Don now includes non-website thread discussions into the equation regarding comments on volunteer efforts so I'm sure I will not be incorrect in assuming this includes myself and others whose main interest lies in matters of VHF+ contesting and who have discussed and/or made suggestions here. Therefore, his "On other matters, don?t hold your breath" statement says it all. We're not listening and we're not interested in any suggestions. 
>
> I value all the volunteer work that members of the society do, and have done some myself in the past, but that doesn't mean putting them all on a pedestal of praise and giving a blanket seal of approval for each and every one and every decision they make on members behalf as some who gladly follow a blind faith principal do. If I feel they're doing a good job I'll say so or like the majority, say nothing and just accept that a task is in good experienced hands. If however the opposite occurs and certainly in some (not all) aspects of the Contest Committee that decisions are found wanting then as RSGB members, we're entitled to raise concerns. 
>
> Call it sniping if you so desire Don but if you and your committee were generating rules and sections in VHF+ contests that put the needs of the UK first rather than the majority of locations pissing against a south east wind, was inclusive to the need of attracting greater foundation and intermediate presence, was helping to inspire greater whole UK activity on VHF+ and finally acknowledging that those that use current technology are not cheating but that you go after individuals that do rather than handcuff us all, then I for one would have nothing to complain about.
> We can't afford blind faith. We can't afford friendship, DX group membership, Contest or Expedition group membership or any type of old pals act to get in the way of understanding we have a VHF+ problem and it's not going to go away until those in a position to make change take positive steps to do so. When, not if we start losing UHF and microwave bands because of lack of our secondary use, you and your committee as well as the VHF and Microwave managers will share much of the blame for not being more pro-active in averting such loss when you had the chance. 
>
> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>
>
>       
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Stewart Rolfe <gw0etf at btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Websites and all that
> To: UK Contest <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <614348.93482.qm at web86611.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> As an addendum to the postings by Don G3XTT and Clive GW3NJW....
>
> I hope and pray it isn't widespread but do I smell an element of instant gratification in all this? 
>
> Viz:-
> "I want a licence and I want it NOW (for little/no effort)"...and 
> "I want a perfect web site....." etc
>
> I was appalled to see a letter in the current Radcom from a gentleman with an Intermediate licence who was complaining about the stresses of having to read equations and learn technical terms like VSWR when all he wants to do is flick a switch and talk.....
>
> This volunteer tutor wonders why he bothers in view of attitudes like this. Sorry it's OT but.......
>
> 73, (or maybe 10-10..?)
>
> Stewart Rolfe, GW0ETF
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:04:21 +0000
> From: Don Field <don.field at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Websites and all that
> To: UK Contest <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<6f965bc00906280804j3f6451a0i6c2bcf98f652d81c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> I see that Ray, once again, chooses wilfully to misrepresent what I have
> said.
>
>
>
> We are listening and, indeed, when I said on here previously that I would
> like input direct when you have specific concerns, it was simply that it is
> easy to be overloaded by chat on the various reflectors and fail to pick up
> the end-points of specific discussions. I was also concerned that we also
> heard from the silent majority, not just the vocal ?frequent posters?.
>
>
>
> But in the post Ray is referring to, where I said ?don?t hold your breath? I
> was very specifically referring to a revamp of the website structure which,
> I had pointed out, was a significant piece of work which, if paid for, would
> cost a lot of money and which, done on a volunteer basis, was unlikely to
> happen anytime soon.
>
>
>
> And no, I don?t assume every criticism is ?sniping? ? volunteers welcome
> constructive feedback, the pointing out of clear errors, etc. But some of
> what I see on the various amateur radio reflectors goes way beyond that ?
> Internet postings come cheap but the silent majority can easily start to
> assume there is no smoke without fire and that there must be some truth in
> some of the quite erroneous things that are said.
>
>
>
> I won?t revert to Ray?s myriad postings about VHF contest rules. I take a
> lead from the VHF members of my Committee on that one and we have stuck with
> what we have, for better or worse. We posted a clear summary on here earlier
> this year of our discussions and conclusions for the RSGB contest programme.
>
>
>
>
> What I take as good news is that you all feel strongly enough about RSGB
> contests to make these points. After all, RSGB has no monopoly of UK
> contesting. UKSMG, BARTG and PW all run contests and ISWL used to. If there
> are perceived gaps in the programme, particularly at VHF, I would be quite
> comfortable with others stepping into the breach. But as a Committee we are
> already heavily loaded. My own priorities when I took on direct running of
> the Committee were to sort out the logistics ? contest turnaround, rapid
> publication of results, certificates, etc. I believe we have gone a long way
> towards this, as well as some great improvements in the submission and
> adjudication of logs due to web and software developments. We do have a
> programme of further development in place but it cannot happen overnight
> (even multi-billion pound government software programmes get delayed or have
> overruns!).
>
>
>
> I will step down as Chairman of the CC at the end of this year and, in
> accordance with RSGB regulations, the post will be advertised in RadCom. We
> can all hope that a suitable successor steps forward. Personally, I loathe
> Committee work in general, but there was a job to be done. I wish my
> successor well.
>
>
>
> Don G3XTT (currently suffering an agonising toothache!)
>
>
> 2009/6/28 Ray James <gm4cxm at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>   
>>
>> --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Don Field <don.field at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Running RSGB contests costs about 10p per member per year.
>>>       
>> It only happens because of voluntary effort (and frankly, with some
>>     
>>> of the sniping which I see on here, I wonder that anyone volunteers when
>>> they could be contesting or spending time with their families).
>>> So, to go back to the beginning. If you find obvious broken
>>> links, let someone know. On other matters, don?t hold your breath.
>>>       
>> I understood this thread to be about the websites and their links.
>> I can usually find what I'm looking for without too much of a problem so it
>> was of little concern.
>> Don now includes non-website thread discussions into the equation regarding
>> comments on volunteer efforts so I'm sure I will not be incorrect in
>> assuming this includes myself and others whose main interest lies in matters
>> of VHF+ contesting and who have discussed and/or made suggestions here.
>> Therefore, his "On other matters, don?t hold your breath" statement says it
>> all. We're not listening and we're not interested in any suggestions.
>>
>> I value all the volunteer work that members of the society do, and have
>> done some myself in the past, but that doesn't mean putting them all on a
>> pedestal of praise and giving a blanket seal of approval for each and every
>> one and every decision they make on members behalf as some who gladly follow
>> a blind faith principal do. If I feel they're doing a good job I'll say so
>> or like the majority, say nothing and just accept that a task is in good
>> experienced hands. If however the opposite occurs and certainly in some (not
>> all) aspects of the Contest Committee that decisions are found wanting then
>> as RSGB members, we're entitled to raise concerns.
>>
>> Call it sniping if you so desire Don but if you and your committee were
>> generating rules and sections in VHF+ contests that put the needs of the UK
>> first rather than the majority of locations pissing against a south east
>> wind, was inclusive to the need of attracting greater foundation and
>> intermediate presence, was helping to inspire greater whole UK activity on
>> VHF+ and finally acknowledging that those that use current technology are
>> not cheating but that you go after individuals that do rather than handcuff
>> us all, then I for one would have nothing to complain about.
>> We can't afford blind faith. We can't afford friendship, DX group
>> membership, Contest or Expedition group membership or any type of old pals
>> act to get in the way of understanding we have a VHF+ problem and it's not
>> going to go away until those in a position to make change take positive
>> steps to do so. When, not if we start losing UHF and microwave bands because
>> of lack of our secondary use, you and your committee as well as the VHF and
>> Microwave managers will share much of the blame for not being more
>> pro-active in averting such loss when you had the chance.
>>
>> 73 Ray GM4CXM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:05:34 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Roger Cooke <g3ldi at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Old Gits vs Young Gits
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <113595.52901.qm at web28305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> Hi Y'all.
>
>  If age qualifies an Old Git, then I must be one. Mine starts with 7 and I am to be avoided by Young Gits because
> I know nothing as I am now old.
>
> Young Gits are those that won't join my CW Class, won't listen to the GB2CW broadcasts and won't join the
> local club, saying that they can do it themselves. Young Gits also think that propagation is bad because it's cloudy!
> Yeah, right!
>
>  
> Regards from Roger, G3LDI
> Swardeston, Norfolk.
>
>
>       
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:31:09 +0100
> From: Peter Bowyer <peter at bowyer.org>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<56152ae90906280931j6a5508e2x4f941586ad5ed41b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/6/28 David Barber <david.barber at dbelectronics.co.uk>:
>
>   
>> ?Expressing an opinion or making a suggestion does not
>> signify an attitude of superior capability nor does it (in most cases)
>> suggest a personal attack, it is merely something we are all entitled to do,
>> something we should consider of others and a right for which we should all
>> be grateful.
>>     
>
> No volunteer worth his/her salt would disagree. But when faced with an
> opinion expressed like this:
>
>   
>> Someone somewhere needs their
>> heads banging together since it's a bloody shambles.
>>     
>
> then hackles tend to rise. That's human nature. A few minutes thought
> about how the opinion is likely to be received can make all the
> difference, and turn a potentially very negative impression into a
> really positive one. Phrases such as 'bloody shambles' are never going
> to go down well, and convey nothing which could be used to improve
> things. Ones such as 'I've found some issues with how the information
> is presented, who should I talk to in order to explain what I mean'
> would be so much better.
>
> Peter G4MJS
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: peter at bowyer.org
> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:10:59 +0100
> From: "David Barber" <david.barber at dbelectronics.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Peter Bowyer' <peter at bowyer.org>
> Message-ID: <E323085446594BE3BDD7B901F28DE624 at DBXPPPOR>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The posting below seems to attribute the following remark to me:
>
> "> Someone somewhere needs their
>   
>> heads banging together since it's a bloody shambles."
>>     
>
>
> I would like to make VERY CLEAR that I DID NOT make this remark.
>
>
> David
> G8OQW
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter Bowyer
> Sent: 28 June 2009 17:31
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] July Radcom - BERU / Old Gits
>
> 2009/6/28 David Barber <david.barber at dbelectronics.co.uk>:
>
>   
>> ?Expressing an opinion or making a suggestion does not
>> signify an attitude of superior capability nor does it (in most cases)
>> suggest a personal attack, it is merely something we are all entitled to
>>     
> do,
>   
>> something we should consider of others and a right for which we should all
>> be grateful.
>>     
>
> No volunteer worth his/her salt would disagree. But when faced with an
> opinion expressed like this:
>
>   
>> Someone somewhere needs their
>> heads banging together since it's a bloody shambles.
>>     
>
> then hackles tend to rise. That's human nature. A few minutes thought
> about how the opinion is likely to be received can make all the
> difference, and turn a potentially very negative impression into a
> really positive one. Phrases such as 'bloody shambles' are never going
> to go down well, and convey nothing which could be used to improve
> things. Ones such as 'I've found some issues with how the information
> is presented, who should I talk to in order to explain what I mean'
> would be so much better.
>
> Peter G4MJS
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: peter at bowyer.org
> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
> End of UK-Contest Digest, Vol 78, Issue 50
> ******************************************
>
>   

-- 
Regards from 

Chris Soames
G0TZZ
email :-
semaos at semaos.plus.com
www.norfolkamateurradio.org