CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC 24 hours M/M

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC 24 hours M/M
From: Art RX9TX <rx99tx@gmail.com>
Reply-to: RX9TX <rx99tx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:57:18 +0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
 brian coyne wrote:

bc> the  points  for  sure.  Personally I feel that RDXC are being too
bc> clever  by  half  in attempt to be innovative. If,as has been said
bc> here  by  some  posters,  that  the  adjusted  scores  after these
bc> penalties  does  not alter the claimed standings then what was the
bc> point of it all anyway?
bc> 73 Brian 5B4AIZ.

Bet  they  just  based  on  QSO  definition which means 2-way (2-way!)
communication. If any bit of the exchange is busted then the integrity
of entire QSO is questioned.

-- 
 RX9TX 
 http://rx9tx.qrz.ru

 "Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again."   [Robert Heinlein, 
Time Enough for Love]     

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

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