Ed,
I think you're attributing the first part of your quoted text to me, which
is incorrect. That was the text that my posting was in reference to. Note
that first paragraph as an extra set of ">" symbols in front of it.
It is common practice on the internet to include a piece of the posting to
which you're replying so that readers of your reply have a context. It
would appear, Ed, that you have misinterpreted this context material, to
which I was replying, as my own text.
Rather, I was writing in rebuttal.
As to making haste slowly in any change...gosh, that saying must be
pre-high-tech age. I can't imagine any company with serious competition in
today's markets having such a philosophy; they'd be out of business with
much haste. My mindset is influenced by that, I'm afraid. So I tend to try
to accomplish a difficult goal, risking some degree of failure, rather than
achieve a comfortable goal, and risk achieving mediocrity, instead. A
matter of perspective.
An old saying: "He who hesitates is lost."
So much for ancient pithy proverbs :)
73,
Gary W2CS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of K4SB
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL report on line scores
>
>
> Something funny about this message. How can W2CS write both, which are
> direct opposites of each other?
>
> Assumming someone quoted someone incorrectly, I don't like the use of
> the word "force" in regard to anyone. We've improved getting the final
> results by 4 to 6 months. Why don't we get a little more input on how
> long it takes remote DX stations to get their logs in?
>
> Old saying, "In any change, make haste slowly"
>
> 73
> Ed
>
> Gary Ferdinand W2CS wrote:
> >
> > > In short, if we give the committee a month past deadline to
> assemble and
> > > post to the web the results (or is a month not enough now, guys?
> > > Tell me if
> > > I'm wrong), and we can have the final results two months
> after the contest
> > > instead of six to eight months, isn't that good enough?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, it's not good enough.
> >
> > I say let's try the proposal for a season. It will force the remaining
> > entrants to use or find electronic means. It will force us all
> to be a tad
> > more prompt with the submissions. With the level of automation
> we now have,
> > 15 days for submission and 15 days for tallying what should be something
> > that can be done in 1 or 2 days sounds about right to me. It
> leaves most of
> > that last 2 weeks open for unanticipated problems.
> >
> > You don't reach a goal by setting it low and hope to improve on
> it later.
> > When's later, a few more years? Rather, set an extremely
> difficult goal and
> > then surprise yourself when you achieve it.
> >
> > I think this is doable with only level-1 whining about it.
> >
> > Gary W2CS
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|