[VHFcontesting] Where IS the beef, anyway?

[Todd Sprinkmann]

   I think Frank K3UHF is asking some very good 
questions in his most recent post.  If these questions 
could be answered, it would clear up a lot of 
speculation and perhaps get this list back on track.  

 >>> If you want to change my opinion, I ask again 
WHERE"S THE BEEF?
        What are the percentages of self generated 
QSOS and multipliers in their scores.
         How many individual stations did they work as 
compared to others.
         I believe this is how you can prove me wrong.
Talking back to one station 146 times does not prove 
you tried to work the community in general. Especially 
when said station writes me and calls me a liar. One 
would suspect that they are part of the team effort. 
Similar to the complaints back east.>>>


   I'm curious as to the actual answers myself.  Obviously, 
there's some degree of misunderstanding going on here.  It 
could be cleared up nicely with some straight answers.  

   If a prize-winning rover or fixed station won while adhering 
to the PRIMARY rule governing all ARRL V/UHF contests, 
then good for them, my hat's off.  If they won without 
adhering to that basic principle, then it's a hollow victory that 
does ham radio and the contesting community little good.  If 
it became the norm to operate without giving a crap about 
anyone else, this wouldn't be much fun now, would it? 
   
    Remember fun??  :) :)   

    Again, here's the guiding principle:
    
   1. Object: To work as many amateur stations in as many 
different 2 degrees by 1 degree grid squares as possible 
using authorized frequencies above 50 MHz

    I think when everyone started out contesting, they grasped 
what this meant, without thinking ahead to loopholes.  


    I need to object to the continued deception of some calling 
this thread rover-bashing.  It's a red herring.  If *any* rover 
operation goes out with the intent of working any/all stations 
they hear, then it's a good rover operation.  If someone goes 
out without that intent, then it's contrary to commonly held 
principles.  That's when objections and criticism may justifiably 
occur.  To raise the charges to "bashing" is overreaction; a 
tactic designed to inflame things further, as opposed to 
answering questions in a reasonable manner.  

    The objections that have been raised have to do with 
possible operating practices, and not rovers.  If the operating 
practices are indeed following the spirit and intent of ARRL 
rules, then there's no problem.  

    73,
    Todd  KC9BQA  EN63ao     50 thru 2304