[VHFcontesting] Contesting Philosophy

[Bill W5WVO]

As a writer/editor, I see an immediate red flag of ambiguity here because of 
the association of the words "rules" and "broken". The latter word has two 
distinct meanings, both of which are called into play by the context and by 
proximity to "rules":

o   Dysfunctional, e.g., "It was found that NASA had a broken [dysfunctional] 
safety culture."
o   Violated, e.g., "Highway speed limits are broken [violated] every day."

I am certain that Marshall intended the former definition -- dysfunctional. 
Substitute this in the sentence under question: "Practically everyone believes 
that the 'Rules for VHF Contesting' are dysfunctional."

It's interesting to note that the syntax of this sentence makes its use of the 
word "broken" grammatical as either an adjective (broken = dysfunctional) or 
as the past tense of a verb (broken = violated). I'm sure Marshall didn't 
intend this syntactical ambiguity, but that's why we editors get paid the big 
bucks. (Yeah, right! Not.)

And to the point, I think seeing the VHF Contesting Rules as dysfunctional is 
a no-brainer. The sheer amount of verbiage dedicated to cussing and discussing 
the subject alone would lead one in that direction.

Bill W5WVO


Jim Forsyth wrote:
> Marshall,
>
> What's the source of that information, I don't see how you could know
> that and I am doubtful.
> Jim, AF6O
>
>> Practically everyone believes that the "Rules for VHF Contesting" are
>> broken.
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting