As printed, what we see posted as Rule 1.10 is not really a rule, and not
worthy of the paper or space it takes up. As a proofreader, I read every word
as printed, not as others choose to interpret it.
Accordingly, "equipment SHOULD be capable of" is a suggestion, not a rule. If
it were a rule, it would have to read "equipment MUST be capable of". As
explained to me by another ARRL official whose email I am still searching for,
"operators need not prove this in advance, they can operate in the contest
regardless". So in actual fact, one never needs to prove this as nobody will
ever call on you to prove it.
As all have noted, there is no defined distance established in the January -
June - September contests. This I understand is because the ARRL committe
could find no acceptable way of measuring contest qso's by the exchange given.
To impose a 6 km distance would require a 6 digit grid reference from both
parties and still have ambiguity in it.
Due to the "no minimum distance", statement, even laser qso's of 3 inches to a
foot are acceptable. Not my idea of clean contesting, though totally legal.
From a safety standpoint, laser "micro-qso's" may prevent serious eye problems
from misdirected laser beams. But as lasers are not true RF, I think they
should be dropped from contesting, to encourage more activity on lower bands to
gain the points. More would win points by doing so.
In rereading the stated Rule 1.10, does anybody else read it as I interpret it?
73,
Bill Burgess VE3CRU
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|