Maybe my non-native English language caused some confusion?
The proper wording would have been:
Attempts were made to “bribe“ us, with the purpose of adding stations/call
signs we did not work, into our log.
We of course did not fall for those “temptations”, and no stations other
than those we worked, were included in the log.
I hope the formulation now does not give any room for wild interpretations
and incorrect assumptions?
If you need further clarification, I am sure that someone with eloquent
native English on this reflector, understood my intentions, and may assist
with an even clearer explanation.
73 de Mats RM2D
tel.net <ve5ra@sasktel.net>> wrote:
> > "Attempts to bribe us with money, so we put them in the log, even though
> we
> > clearly did not work them
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 22:24, Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net> wrote:
> > "Attempts to bribe us with money, so we put them in the log, even though
> we
> > clearly did not work them."
>
> From what I read the cheater(s) are the operator(s) who accepted the bribes
> and added the callsigns to the DXpedition log. Am I correct?
>
> Doug
>
> Free Climbing - The ultimate test of strength and technique.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Those call signs I prefer to keep for myself, but they were indeed mostly
> small pistols who never would "compete" with the honor roll guys.
>
> In general, although I am (was) a great fan of the competitive element of
> the hobby, I think the DX-part is getting a bit out of control.
>
> The "pleasure" of working those low band DX-contacts, using WebSDR or Ray's
> (and others) Remote TX stations, must be very limited.
>
> 73 Mats RM2D
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|