Wow! Now I'm sending bad calls. I meant AB6LJ was my host. AA6LB
was my friend Carl's old call b4 AH8I.
I don't think Danny's on internet yet.....Don't tell on me please.
Eric, NV6O
edwoods@pacbell.com
>From David C. Patton" <mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Mon Sep 11 20:44:39 1995
From: David C. Patton" <mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David C. Patton)
Subject: Derekmania
Message-ID: <199509111944.OAA03339@ecom1.ecn.bgu.edu>
Ward,
I really don't think the issue has anything to do with the top
operators handicapping themselves and still doing well. As Pete,
N4ZR said, it is difficult to put a finger on exactly what is wrong
with this situation. I have tried to do that, and maybe haven't yet
done it--but I have come close.
I guess what bugs me is that all these guys didn't do all this to
make a better score or improve themselves--they did it because it
sounded fun and "everyone else was doing it" so jump on the
bandwagon. When I do something for the sprint I want to improve, I
want to WIN it. I have never won a sprint, but I have come close.
It is not a trivial thing for me or for lots of other guys. I am
sure that Tree and Jeff and Trey and Bill had absolutely no intention
of trivializing the sprint. But I WANT to see Jeff and Tree break
400 QSOs, I WANT them to beat me so that I have to continually try to
do better and have some goal in mind. AND in the event that I should
actually put together a great score, maybe just enough to win it, I
want it to be when there was competition.
Further, if someone wants to get on with low power, or use a bug or
straight key, they should just DO IT--without changing the whole
competitive nature of the contest by talking it up among a select few
who then jump on the bandwagon. In this instance (1) the high power
competition nearly disappeared, (2) the traditional low power
stations were displaced, (3) exchange names were picked to
intentionally confuse operators, which isn't bad by itself, but has
to be considered a poor decision under the guise of attracting newer
contesters to the sprint--people who have a hard enough time copying
more usual names like DAVE rather than Derec or some other derivation
that hardly consists of a nickname, and (4) caused me and probably
others to forego a serious effort because it wasn't worth the time or
cost to operate. All of which reduces activity.
I also do not contend that a lack of publicity caused this weekend's
drivol, but a lack of information. I knew that Tree had posted a
comment that some operators were planning to operate low power and
would use straight keys and "just wait until you here the names."
That's not enough information to get me to drive the usual 3.5 hours
for a four hour contest. I just asked for consideration in the
future, but I doubt something like this will occur again.
It just isn't an issue of being overly serious. Those of us who
question derekmania I believe are questioning the lack of respect for
the sprint which could possibly lead to future problems.
Perhaps the sprint rules should be changed with respect to the
exchange and state something like: "the exchange shall be a serial
number, five character group of your choosing, and state."
This way those who read the rules and decide to try a contact won't
have to question a nickname which makes no sense in the english
language.
I have spent too much time on this issue because I care about the
contest and the great work that Rusty, Trey, and Tree and Rick and
others have invested in it.
Again, I got a laugh out of what went on and hope that everyone had
fun. But I want the sprint to remain a four hour contest where fun
actually occurs because it is an all-out effort that is something to
look forward to. Four hours of REAL contest--not the 48 that people
complain about. Think about it, if we truly competitive contesters
lose the competitive nature of the sprint, what are we going to have
left? There is nothing else out there.
73, Dave Patton, WX3N
mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
|