Mal,
To reiterate my response to K4IK,
"As I've previously written, my desire/request is for the NAQP contests
ONLY. WAS is completely different, an award, not a contest. It is not
germane to this discussion.
"Geographic locators in the ARRL Sweepstakes are ARRL Sections. The
District of Columbia is part of an ARRL Section (Maryland-DC), and
unless/until it is a separate ARRL Section, should not be accounted for
separately.
How much more simply can I state this?
Thanks for your comments,
Eric W3DQ
Washington, DC
At 11:17 PM 5/31/2005 +0000, N7MAL wrote:
>I think we need to slow this bus down a little. Whether or not you
>want DC, as a section, will become mute if it is allowed in even one
>contest, it will become a mult in every contest. Our domestic contests
>have finally stabilized. We were adding mults to our domestic
>contests, year after year for several years, creating problems for
>everyone from the contest sponsors to the software writers on down to
>the participants.
>As has already been suggested why not every Indian reservation, after
>all they have cigarette stores, gaming casinos, and are considered
>sovereign.
>IMHO we need to quickly, and gently, put the lid back on this can of
>worms.
>73
>
>MAL N7MAL
>BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
><http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm>http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:wd3q@starpower.net>Eric Rosenberg
>To: <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 18:05
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules and the District of Columbia
>
>Thanks to those who have taken the time to reply to my email regarding
>
>the multiplier status of the District of Columbia in the various
>NAQPs.
>The dialog has been stimulating, interesting, and somewhat
>disappointing.
>That notwithstanding, it's time to move on to the next level.
>
>One respondent suggested:
>
>"Maybe your post to CQ Contest should be revised to:
>
> I would like the NAQP to add DC as a multiplier."
>
>That's been my issue from the start. I have no interest in having the
>
>District become an ARRL Section, nor have the District be counted as a
>DX
>entity.
>
>My interest is that for this series of contests ONLY, where it seems
>that
>every other US governed entity, be it a state or other territorial
>body,
>has a separate identity, the District of Columbia be treated as a
>separate entity, too.
>
>As there appears to be no official process for submitting this
>request, I
>have taken the liberty to air this publicly. I accept the notion that
>
>the governing body of the NAQPs may not want to modify the rules. If
>that's the case, I would like to know why, and too, if there is any
>recourse or method to appeal their decision. I don't think that's
>asking
>too much.
>
>One correspondent made the comment that he doesn't enter a contest
>because he's a rare multiplier, rather that they're fun. While I
>wholeheartedly agree that my main criteria for participation in any
>given
>activity is that it must be fun, being treated equally certainly adds
>to
>the fun factor. Those of us who live and/or work here in the District
>do
>try and drum up activity and local competition, and have, as a result,
>
>seen stations previously dormant come back to life. Giving folks
>another
>positive reason to enter a given contest does increase activity, which
>is
>something I believe we in the contesting community want (it was
>certainly
>mentioned at the 2005 Dayton Contest Dinner). That increased activity
>
>and inherent competition adds to the fun!
>
>Finally, and to reiterate the comment above, I would like the NAQP to
>add
>DC as a multiplier. How do we go about this?
>
>Thank you to those who've sent me comments on this issue. As I've
>discovered over the years, the contesting community is both passionate
>
>and articulate... and certainly willing to speak it's mind!
>
>73,
>Eric W3DQ
>Washington, DC
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|