Oh Really? Without trying to flame Tyler, (who, giving him the
benefit of the doubt, may not have completely considered what he was
typing before he hit the send button) I need to respond.
What right does anyone else have to tell the rest us how to have fun?
I happen to be one of those 79/79 (it is currently 79, you know) for
the SSB contest. And, I did it using the PacketCluster Node that I
have here on the other side of the shack. I submitted my entry with
the Multi-Ops and I was listed as such (N2BIM +Packet). And I didn't
send in for a mug. The first and only mug I ever sent for back a good
number of years ago broke off at the handle the first time I took it
out of the box!
But I had FUN doing 79/79. Is that an OK thing to do? Have fun?
I don't like SSB. I like CW. For CW SS, I get on and operate
whatever time my schedule allows. (Yes. I definitely devote more
time for CW because I like it.) And I don't use packet. I made 500+
QSOs in 1999, and thought I had a Sweep (until Tree got at the log
<G>). I guess for both modes I qualify as a casual op. And, for both
modes, I don't care about, nor do I plan on winning anything . I just
want to have some FUN.
So who gives anybody the right to be pissed off because that's what I
want to do in the SSB test? Does everybody have an attitude like
this? If so, maybe this year, I won't bother getting on in SSB at
all. Then those 79 ops won't get any QSOs at all.
Or, maybe I'll get on and operate all weekend. Nobody, not even me,
knows yet.
But no one else has any right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
73, Gene...N2BIM..>>
PS: I haven't "bragged" to anybody about it, and I don't consider SS
to be DXing, poor or otherwise.
Tyler Stewart wrote:
>
> Actually, I think the opposite could be true. It could encourage guys to get
> on just to work a sweep. They'll work those 75 spots or so during the
> contest that they need and wont bother scanning the band themselves, working
> us peons as they go. Frankly, I get a bit pissed off at guys that brag how
> they made their "perfect sweep" working one Q per mult. That's not
> contesting...that's poor-man's DXing at it's worst.
>
> At any rate, having an assisted category in ANY contest with such a limitied
> number of easily-attainable multipliers is pointless unless you just HAVE to
> have 2 Sweep mugs per year. It does little to the overall score.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Lallathin <aa8u@modempool.com>
> To: <n6tr@teleport.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 02:10
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SO Unlimited question
>
> >
> > >
> > >The assisted category isn't attractive to the "average" "top ten"
> > >contester.
> >
> > Tree, no disrespect, but the way you use the phrasse "top ten contester"
> seems
> > to me to be very narrow minded.
> >
> > After all, there are/is a "top ten" in every cataagory, including assisted!
> > Just because the group you speak of, and may belong to, considers it beneath
> > them to operate in the assisted catagories dosen't mean the assisted bunch
> is
> > any less competative or worthy of your respect.
> >
> > This is an apple and oranges problem....you just prefer apples. Oranges
> taste
> > just as sweet for those that prefer them. Both are good for you!
> >
> > Take away all the stations operating with packet and you are left with a lot
> > less Q's. I should think you would welcome them rather than making them feel
> > like the unwashed masses.
> >
> >
> >
> > >However, for many of us, using this tool isn't the
> > >way we enjoy playing the game and would rather keep the concept
> > >of a single operator without unassisted alive.
> >
> > I agree. The SO class should remain unchanged.
> >
> > >
> > >Allowing packet for all single ops would ruin contesting as we
> > >know it.
> >
> > Maybe according to your narrow definition of contesting.
> >
> >
> > --
> > CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> > Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> >
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|