CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.

To: "'cq-contesting'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Reply-to: vo1he@rac.ca
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:06:36 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park.... Cheaters will find a way.

73 -- Paul VO1HE  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick-w0raa
> Sent: December 13, 2007 15:52
> To: cq-contesting
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Shut down the clusters during a contest. SImple.
> 
> Has anybody given thought to asking the people who 
> own/operate the various clusters, to voluntarily shut them 
> down during contest periods?  What did we do before there 
> were clusters and packet?  We fouind stations to work, the 
> old fashioned way.  We turned the knob and looked for them.  
> God forbid we should have to do that today.  What a horrible thought.
> 
> So, why not just get all of them to voluntarily turn them off 
> at the onset of a contest and then turn them back on at the 
> end of the contest?  I think it's doable, so why not do it?  
> Then we'd find out if these big gun winners are as big gunned 
> as they claim to be.  It's certainly worth considering.
> 
> Also, all contests should be limited to 100 watts.  Now 
> there's where the cheating would go.  Cheaters would be 
> saying: "Me, more than 100 watts? Not me, I follow the rules!"
> 
> Dick
> W0RAA
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> To: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>; "Untitled" 
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
> 
> 
> > Assisted seems to have less competitors which translates to higher
> > finishes...
> >
> > I most cases if you are chasing spots you are probably not 
> winning.  Run 
> > run
> > run run run.
> >
> >
> > On 12/12/07 4:37 PM, "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Because some of us still like to do things the old 
> fashioned way.  All by
> >> ourselves!  And we like the fact that we can compete in a 
> category with
> >> other people who feel the same way.  Even makes it more 
> fun when we can 
> >> beat
> >> the packet assisted guys.
> >>
> >> I am against combining them because I like to be 
> recognized as a guy who
> >> knows how to operate.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't mind if they were combined because then all the 
> SOA guys who
> >> think they are competitive will realize that packet does 
> not a winning 
> >> score
> >> make.
> >>
> >> Randy, K5ZD
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> >>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Yuri VE3DZ
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:08 PM
> >>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
> >>>
> >>> I don't like Dx Cluster, but the reality is - like it or not
> >>> - almost everyone is using it nowadays, one way or another. I
> >>> mean 99.9 % of the HAM stations have the capability of using
> >>> Dx Cluster today.
> >>> So, why not just allow it for all categories, like it was
> >>> done for WAE or Russian DX long time ago?
> >>>
> >>> What are we afraid of here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yuri  VE3DZ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>