Wow. So if I'm working phone and I say (over the air) to no one in
particular "if you work someone from NNY, send 'em on over here" that puts
me in the multi category? If that's true (1) I am guilty of doing this in
the past and (2) so are hundreds of others similarly guilty.
73,
Alan/K6SRZ
At 10:25 11/15/2006 -0800, K6VVA wrote:
>SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!!
>
>With the SS Phone weekend rapidly approaching, I sincerely hope this helps
>someone else to NOT make the same mistake (out of ignorance and
>misunderstanding) that I did in the 2006 SS CW event.
>
>Special TNX to wise sage Mr. Wardster, N0AX, for his advice as to a
>solution in this matter vs. simply requesting withdrawal of my humble,
>non-competitive log submission.
>
>73 & Good Luck in the Contest, Om's...
>
>Rick, K6VVA
>
>P.S. I am strongly considering the NON-use of Packet during my limited QRV
>in the SS Phone event, so any pre-fill data with a "U" category *may* be
>incorrect ;-(
>
>RE:
>===
>
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:10:20 -0800
> >To: kc1j@arrl.org
> >From: K6VVA <dx35@hilding.com>
> >Subject: RE: K6VVA ARRL 2006 SS CW Log Submission
> >
> >Hello, Tom:
> >
> >In an abundance of caution, and due to my ignorance and misinterpretation
> >of packet rules for the "U" category, based upon several Reflector
> >discussions, it appears I need to change my K6VVA 2006 SS CW Log
> >Submission from the category of "U" to "M".
> >
> >In my operational excitement of only needing the "NL" section for a Clean
> >Sweep before having to QRT Sunday Morning, I recall making a post (like
> >others I'd seen) which I didn't even remotely consider to be
> >"solicitation" at the time.
> >
> >Will this email suffice, or do I need to totally resubmit a log with the
> >above correction in it?
> >
> >IMHO, there is a fuzzy thin line between "U" and "M", and from one vantage
> >point, I now believe there is really no difference. In fact, I think "U"
> >should be changed to "MU" (Multi-Unlimited), because the use of packet is
> >really like having the benefit of thousands and thousands of "Assistant"
> >operators.
> >
> >In any case, I believe a more detailed "WARNING" and description of what
> >constitutes "Solicitation" needs to be incorporated into a re-write of the
> >SS rule.
> >
> >Please advise if my requested change can be made at the ARRL, or if I need
> >to resubmit.
> >
> >Tnx & 73...
> >
> >Rick, K6VVA
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NCCC mailing list (http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/nccc)
>Post to: nccc@contesting.com
>Manage your subscription at: http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/options/nccc
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|