... seems some still don't like parts of the
Constitution either.
and the debate played on ;o)
73,
Julius
n2wn
--- Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@pclink.com> wrote:
> Ted,
>
> I choose A.
>
> And anyone who thinks otherwise should try this
> task...
>
> Write your own contest rules today (2008) that will
> still be valid in 2058.
> Or here, an easier one... define the Universe. :-)
>
> Even our fore-fathers were not significantly
> prescient, having adopted the
> original Constitution in 1787 and amending it 27
> times since then.
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
>
> > Given that these rules have existed for a
> considerable period of time,
> > which is a more reasonable
> > expectation:
> >
> > A) That the authors of the ARRL rules intended the
> phrase "...spotting
> > assistance or nets (operating
> > arrangements
> > involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets,
> packet, Internet, etc)..."
> > was meant to cover
> > information gathered and reported from other
> humans
> >
> > - OR -
> >
> > B) That the authors of the ARRL rules were
> prescient enough to forsee that
> > one day there may also be
> > non-human means by which stations could be
> detected and reported
> >
> > It would be nice to hear from someone involved in
> writing these. Inquiring
> > minds want to know.
> >
> > 73, Ted W4NZ
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of Stan
> > Stockton
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:03 PM
> > To: VR2BrettGraham
> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule
> Challenge
> >
> >
> > Great analysis, Brett!
> >
> > You are exactly correct. The rules are clear,
> however it seems there is
> > a desire among some to either use the correct
> reading of what is written
> > OR twist it into something it does not say
> (whichever best works) in
> > order to justify a particular position having to
> do with this issue.
> >
> > One question that I don't think has been asked is
> when were these rules
> > written and whether the person or committee who
> wrote them is still
> > around.
> >
> > It would be interesting to see if the original
> author of the rules
> > honestly thought a single operator should be able
> to work from a list of
> > stations he had nothing to do with finding as long
> as the information
> > did not come from a third party person. If it
> could have been
> > envisioned that a receiver could copy all
> callsigns on the entire band
> > or bands that were received at the station's
> location and put them on
> > the computer screen, would that have been within
> the intent of the rule.
> > I think not.
> >
> > Stan, K5GO
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "VR2BrettGraham" <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
> > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule
> Challenge
> >
> >
> >> WC1M answered KB7G questioning which current
> contest/rule
> >> he said did not prohibit SOs from skimming:
> >>
> >>>I'm referring to the ARRL rules for HF
> Contesting. The relevant rule
> >>>is:
> >>>
> >>>"2.1.1.Use of spotting assistance or nets
> (operating arrangements
> >>>involving
> >>>other individuals, DX-alerting nets, packet,
> Internet, etc) is not
> >>>permitted."
> >>>
> >>>The way this rule is worded, use of local Skimmer
> is allowed. The
> >>>phrase in
> >>>parenthesis defines the terms "spotting
> assistance or nets", and it
> >>>doesn't
> >>>include anything like local Skimmer. It appears
> that "arrangements
> >>>involving
> >>>other individuals" is the part of the phrase that
> defines "assistance"
> >>>and
> >>>the rest defines "nets". It looks an awful lot
> like the rule defines
> >>>assistance as coming from other individuals. I
> don't think one can
> >>>rely on
> >>>the first few words, "Use of spotting assistance"
> alone to
> >>>definitively say
> >>>the rule prohibits local Skimmer. This would most
> likely result in
> >>>some
> >>>people claiming that it's not assistance if it
> doesn't come from
> >>>another op.
> >>>We shouldn't have that kind of ambiguity in the
> rules.
> >>
> >> Ah ha, I get it:
> >>
> >> "Use of A or B (followed by a list things) is not
> permitted"
> >>
> >> Does not mean:
> >>
> >> "Use of A or use of B (followed by a list of
> things) is not
> >> permitted"
> >>
> >> It means:
> >>
> >> "Use of A [now refer to just first item in list
> following B] or
> >> B (followed by a list of things) is not
> permitted"
> >>
> >> If the only difference between SO & SOA is that
> the latter
> >> does not necessarily have to find the stations to
> work all
> >> by himself, then the current rule that says that
> using
> >> spotting assistance or using an opened ended list
> of certain
> >> means of obtaining that spotting assistance by
> SOs seems
> >> to cover it.
> >>
> >> The way it has been written may be rather naff,
> but hitting
> >> on spotting assistance as well as the ways of
> getting this
> >> spotting assistance, the ARRL rule is trying to
> make it very
> >> clear that spotting assistance for SOs isn't on.
> >>
> >> But now I know better. Thank you for
> enlightening me.
> >>
> >> 73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>
=== message truncated ===
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|