CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] "Back in the day" -- Single- or Multi-op?

To: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] "Back in the day" -- Single- or Multi-op?
From: Art Boyars <artboyars@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 19:56:08 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Back in the 70s and into mid 80s, you needed a person to maintain the dupe
sheet and to scream out DUUUUUPE as they found it."

Surely the writer has mis-spoken.  Each Single Op maintained her/his own
dupe sheet. (Unless you are talking about Field Day, where lots of op's
were getting their annual dose of contest-style operation, and there were
many aberrations from "best practices" -- "Roger your 2 Alpha in
Pennsylvania.  Please copy...")

73, Art K3KU

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:48 PM Edward Sawyer <
EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com> wrote:

> Back in the 70s and into mid 80s, you needed a person to maintain the dupe
> sheet and to scream out DUUUUUPE as they found it.  It definitely slowed
> down one operator back then to do both.  FD allowed this.  To my knowledge,
> other contests did not.  But maybe it was done anyway.  Not sure.
>
> Today, any good op would comment that having someone "log for me" would be
> a disaster and clearly slow me down.  So the real question is, why would
> someone want to hurt themselves in single op with a logging op.  Not, why
> wouldn't they be unfair and illegal to the category.   NO ONE is going to
> win a single op category contest with another op just "logging for them".
>
> Now if they are using cluster and prepping the radio with loud easy fills
> while an op is running, that's a different story.
>
> Ed  N1UR
> _______________________________________________
> 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>