This post is the perfect definition of hypocrisy.
Mike W0MU
On 6/24/2014 6:43 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
A friend of mine, no stranger to the top 10, made this comment to me
in an off line email.......
"....the enormous arrogance of the tiny minority that can afford to
operate from "the other side" and feel as thought the whole contest is
only about THEM. Apparently the rest of us are just cannon fodder,
filler for their logs."
I agree with him.
And, oh by the way Barry, yes, some of us still "search".
73, de Hans, K0HB
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Adams
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:15 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules
Did anyone tally the feedback made _after_ WPX about stations that
felt they were more/less disadvantaged because of the ID requirement,
or stations that that found the contest more/less fun because of the
rule change?
To be honest, I don't remember much post-contest feedback one way or
the other; I just remember a lot of fuss when the change was announced.
While I think that a strong argument could be made that ID frequency
is a strategy choice that could be of concern between competitive
stations in a close race, I also think that a stronger argument could
be made that having running stations ID more frequently might enhance
the enjoyment of little guns or casual operators who fill the logs of
the competitive stations.
Personally, I don't think that the proposed rule change is the end of
the world. But I'd play in the contest and have fun regardless of
whether the change was made. Others' mileage may vary.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|