[NLRS] Re: John Anderson <[email protected]>: Re: [Mw] Clarification of ARRL 10GHz and Up contest rules

Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:16:02 -0500

I am not a 10 GHzer so please excuse me for butting in.  An earlier email 
stated the rules.  No amount of discusssion here locally is going to change
the rule and no discussion at all will change it for this year because this years
rules have already been published.   Read the rules.  If it is an
ARRL contest then the ARRL rules apply.   Each station is responsible 
for knowing and following the rules.  If another station chooses to
not know the rules or not follow the rules, that is their business and
responsibility.   RTFR  "read the fucking rules"

73 K0NY

On Thursday 29 August 2002 03:37 pm, you wrote:
> I think it is time for a Scotch, or a beer.
>
> Time to get clarification form the horse's mouth, publish it, abide by it,
> and be done with it.
>
> Earl
> N0HZ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baker, Donn B" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Chris Cox'" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Gary M Danelius" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [NLRS] Re: John Anderson <[email protected]>: Re: [Mw]
> Clarification of ARRL 10GHz and Up contest rules
>
> > Hi Chris,
> > I actually don't care WHAT the response is, or has been. We can live with
>
> it
>
> > either way.  What I object to is that the RULES apparently have been
>
> altered
>
> > by a bunch of PRIVATE, OFF-THE-CUFF, UNPUBLISHED CHANGES.  That is NOT
> > acceptable.  Especially if it has, as you point out, been an issue for
> > years!
> >
> > 73 Donn
> > WA2VOI/0
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Cox [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:21 AM
> > To: Donn Baker
> > Cc: Gary M Danelius; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [NLRS] Re: John Anderson <[email protected]>: Re: [Mw]
> > Clarification of ARRL 10GHz and Up contest rules
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Donn Baker wrote:
> > > Obviously, its a matter of interpetation.  NOTHINMG IN DAN'S ANSWER
> >
> > NEGATES
> >
> > > THE SPECIFIC 3.9 RULE SAYING THAT PHONE AND INTERNET CANNOT BE USED.
> > > Nothing says that repeaters can be used.  "Scheduling is permitted and
> > > encouraged" does NOT remove those restrictions.
> >
> > Donn,
> >
> > I have seen this question raised on one or more of the mailing lists at
> > least once each year of the past three years!  I thought I remembered Dan
> > saying last year that the rule would be rewritten for future 10GHz&^
> > cumulatives to as to remove the ambiguity/contradiction.
> >
> > I am sure that the reply I read last year explicitly said that any means
> > were fine as long as the actual contest exchanges occurred via the
> > microwave radio link.  If I remember correctly, examples given of what
> > was allowed included "cellphones, jungle drums, or even smoke signals"!
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the same ambiguity still exists in the rules this
> > year.  However, given Dan's prior responses, a number of people have
> > stated that using cellular phopnes for coordination is acceptable during
> > the event.
> >
> > --
> > 73  Chris Cox  N0UK, G4JEC, ex-AB0CN, ex-G8PTC  RNARS #1157  EN34jv
> >
> > [email protected]        Ping Jockey's do it until they HEAR the burn...
> >   WWW Home Page: http://WWW.Chris.Org/   http://www.pingjockey.net
> > Cultural observation:
> > Europeans think 100 miles is a long way;
> > Americans think 100 years is a long time!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NLRS mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> > _______________________________________________
> > NLRS mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs