CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2

To: "George Dubovsky" <n4ua.va@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2
From: "James Cain" <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:21:43 -0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
You commented about uniques but you attached my earlier comment about 
single-assisted. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George Dubovsky 
  To: James Cain 
  Cc: CQ Contest 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey Results - part 2


  I can recall more than one occasion when I had to coach a "casual" operator 
through a contest contact. That would be a good Q under anyone's interpretation 
of the rules. What if that was the only contest contact that fellow made? Why 
should I be penalized for taking the time and effort to get the Q?

  73,


  geo - n4ua



  On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, James Cain <jamesdavidcain@gmail.com> wrote:

    >"I don't believe that there is at least  [he means 'even'] one casual 
operator who does not use clusters."

    This is just so wrong as to be not even laughable. Thousands of contesters, 
from casuals like me to top competitors, log off, disconnect, and just play 
radio.


    K1TN
    _______________________________________________
    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>