Hi Dick,
I've never worked at the League, but I have known quite a few people who do,
since I live in the Hartford, CT area. The folks that do work there are by
no means perfect, but they do love the hobby, and as you said in your email,
are very supportive of contesting.
It is frustrating to me to see people on the CQ-Reflector constantly bash the
League people without any attempt to get the facts. I think it's sad that
emails like yours are so rarely seen. I'm sure those at the ARRL who were
trying to improve things and got bashed, appreciate your taking public notice
of what they were REALLY trying to do. I know I do.
Tom, N1MM
P.S. Please do not remail this. I'd rather not get bashed by the flamers.
>From De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> Sun Oct 15 02:52:53 1995
From: De Syam <syam@Glue.umd.edu> (De Syam)
Subject: No more printed contest rules in QST?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951014215102.5739B-100000@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Jim Hollenback wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:56am, Lau, Zack, KH6CP wrote:
> > Subject: RE: No more printed contest rules in QST?
> >
> > My understanding was that newcomers could read "user friendly"
> > explanations of how to operate the contest. See the October 1995
> > QST for an example, page 125.
> >
> > Of course, the BOOK will be a necessity for serious competitors
> > who have invested $$$ into their competitive stations.
> >
> > Personally, I think this makes sense. Why subject newcomers to
> > the detailed fine print? Most beginners just want enough information
> > to participate without sounding like a lid. I think this will result in
> > more
> > participation.
> >
>
> How much you want to bet that the book of rules will not be a very
> hot item in the ARRL book store? Bet most will operate the contest
> from memory, or old copies of QST, or the beginers guide to the contest.
>
> 73, Jim, WA6SDM
> jholly@cup.hp.com
>
--And the contest desk will be kept busy adjusting logs submitted with
the old rules in mind to the new rules--
Very 73,
Fred Laun, K3ZO
>From Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru Sat Oct 14 22:00:57 1995
From: Jerry Sidorov" <jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru (Jerry Sidorov)
Subject: Updated 1995 CQWW rules wanted.
Message-ID: <AB9K2WmKn0@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru>
Hi fellow contesters,
could you, please, send me directly an updated 1995 CQWW rules?
Thanks in advance.
---
73, Jerry UA9AR.
Mail: Jerry Sidorov, P/O Box 9411, * E-mail: jerry@ua9ar.urc.ac.ru
Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia *
>From ni6t@ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) Sun Oct 15 10:22:59 1995
From: ni6t@ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (Garry Shapiro )
Subject: CQP: Siskiyou County
Message-ID: <199510150922.CAA25812@ix5.ix.netcom.com>
This is multipart MIME message.
--jexrnuvjbcwkhjifuiygmrdmprmqds
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ0317.TMP"
Attachment is reply to KG6LF
--jexrnuvjbcwkhjifuiygmrdmprmqds
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="00001335.msg"
From: ni6t@ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro )
Subject: Re: CQP: Siskiyou County
To: joe.ham@ctobbs.com (Joe Ham)
You wrote:
>
>Gary,
>Even if Ray hasn't done all those things, and even if it snows, I bet
>you still set a county record. Have a good time. We'll be running Co
>Co County low power and still try to set a record.
>73
>Jerry
>KG6LF
>
I just got back from Oregon, where I caught NO steelhead; however, my
friends and I were broken into and ripped off on the Rogue River by
some junkie scumbag.
I left for Siskiyou around 7:30PM Friday night. I got as far as Los
Gatos before realizing that I had no money; my wife brought some down
the hill to me. I got on the Interstate at about 8PM and arrived at
K6VX--380 miles away--5.25 hours later. That's a 70 mph average
including a pit stop. I have done it faster and would have gone faster
but had not had time to get a wheel balance and had a shimmy at 95 mph.
Should not be telling this to a police chief, I suppose.
Ray got me up after 3 hours' sleep and we configured his station for
the contest, including rewiring his coaxial relays (he normally just
uses a footswitch). Got a good start but, as usual, stayed on a band or
mode too long and bandswitching was tedious.
Ray did get the 40m 3el up--at 160 feet--although it was not rotating.
We pointed it at 70 degrees and left it there. Not being accustomed to
such a cannon, I probably started too late on 40--around 0045Z--as
evidenced by a Conway-size pileup that drove the rate meter into the
high 200's. That session garnered 307 Q's in 2.2 hours. Awesome.
Ray had had a lot of storm damage and a cuppla spreaders on his quad
were flapping in the breeze. I only had 3 Q's on 160--late getting
there, and might have taken my 6 hours off too early, but the 80m rate
was dropping quickly at the time. Last year I did better on 80/160 and
much worse on 40.
One bad dream that came true was being overhauled by Peter, AB6WM, who
wound up with 48 more Q's, but I had more on CW and almost caught him.
I had 693 CW out or of 1553 Q's--a pretty good ratio.
The southern boys--AB6FO, AC6T, KC6X--and W1FEA/6 and W6REC from the
North dominated. I guess my 220.3K is worth Top Ten and a new record
for Siskiyou--breaking last year's. Had a great time, despite little
sleep. Maybe next year I will be smarter. Responsibilities at home
prevented strategy planning before going.
You had a FB low power score--looks like a second or third place
finish. Congrats!
Garry, NI6T
--jexrnuvjbcwkhjifuiygmrdmprmqds--
>From ni6t@ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) Sun Oct 15 10:52:52 1995
From: ni6t@ix.netcom.com (Garry Shapiro ) (Garry Shapiro )
Subject: Contest exchange?
Message-ID: <199510150952.CAA18506@ix4.ix.netcom.com>
You wrote:
>
>How much do you send when correcting an incomplete or busted call?
>
>On CW, my relatively recent practice has been:
>
>Me: CQ TEST AA6MC
>Him: K1ABC
>Me: K2ABC 5NN3 (or whatever)
>Him: K1ABC K1ABC 5NN5
>Me: K1 TU AA6MC
>
>or on SSB:
>
>Him: (garble) ABC
>Me: ending ABC, 59 3
>Him: K1ABC 59 5
>Me: K1, thanks, QRZ?
>
>I'd like to survey the forum community's practice in this area. I
have in the
>past tended to use the CT AUTOCORRECT feature which will resend the
entire call
>on CW, but recently in an attempt to speed things up I've started to
manually
>send just the part I got wrong, prefix or suffix. But a contester who
I
>greatly respect discouraged this practice, in essence saying that I
hadn't
>completed the required exchange. Another contester I greatly respect
>abbreviates this even further, as:
>
>Me: (garble) ABC
>Me: ABC, 59 3
>Him: K1ABC 59 5
>Me: AA6MC
>
>What do you say? Please send your opinion to me, I'll tabulate the
votes and
>share the summarized results.
>
>Dick Dievendorff, AA6MC
>
>
It's just like a DX pileup, Dick: if the guy does not hear his full
callsign, he cannot be sure you have it. Send the full callsign.
All these cutesy ways of saving a second seem to have a price; in this
case, you save a fraction of a second, and he goes away wondering if he
was logged.
My own nemesis is those stations who send fully abbreviated numerical
exchanges--at 50 wpm, e.g. ATNN for 1099. Trips me up EVERY time.
Garry, NI6T
|