Bill:
I know and have operated with many of the people in your list
and slug is not the term I would use for any of them. Everybody
has a right to an opinion on whether we use packet or not but
I get a bit overwrought when friends of mine are called slugs.
Henny,
N4HY
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bill Fisher, W4AN
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 23:11
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Participant Categories
Following up on Jim's (N6TJ) comments regarding packet (I was one of the
folks that mailed him privately in complete agreement with his views on this
subject).
My personal feeling is that the rule makers of the contests that count
(CQWW - both modes) prefer the mult-op categories to be less competitively
based. Or, it would appear they prefer the opinions of "participants" who
far out number "competitors".
^^^^^^^ Can you say this again in English? How could you ever believe
^^^^^^^ the rule makers don't want competition when they call it a contest?
Either way, by leaving packet in the CQWW the rule makers have (by their
lack of intervention) changed the complexion of the multi-op categories from
competitive categories to more participant-based categories.
Competitors in the US should make their opinions known to one of these
slugs: K1AR, K1DG, N2AA, N2NC, KR2Q, W2RQ, N3ED, N3RA, K3UA, K3ZO, KM3T,
W3ZZ, N5KO, N5NJ, N6AA, K6NA, N6TR, N6TW, N6ZZ, W7EJ, N8BJQ, N9RV, or W0UN.
73
Bill Fisher
2003 CQ-Nonsense posting quota filled.
You're welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|