[PaQSO] I disagree

Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:30:03 -0400

Well, if someone manages a clean sweep on each mode (and more power to
them!), at the very least I would suggest that they indicate as such as part
of their entry.  If they want two awards & have earned them, and NARC is
agreeable to so indicating, why not?

Now, would you want to pay for two separate plaques, or one plaque that was
made up to indicate both?  If you don't mind two separate ones, then I don't
forsee a problem.  (But the final arbitrator on that will be the PaQP
committee and ultimately NARC.  Perhaps someone should drop this year's
chair, Chuck K3CM, a note and ask him?)

I just don't see the need to make a rules change to cover this.  Besides, it
sounds like it might be a moot point unless someone gets some CW activity
out of Philly this year.

73, ron wn3vaw

"And they give you cash,
which is just as good as money!"
Yogi Berra, AFLAC Commercial, 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Crossland <[email protected]>
To: 'Joe Raymer' <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: [PaQSO] I disagree

I really like the idea of a sweep for each mode AND an overall sweep!  Now
that would be extremely challenging.  My immediate concern is, what kind of
issue would this be for the scoring committee?  My suggestion would be that
the operator would complete a separate verification form indicating the
contacts that comprise the sweep.  Takes the major effort off of the
committee (I don't mean to trivialize the plaque effort as I'm convinced the
entire process is a monumental task, for sure).

Cost should not be an issue as the persons worthy of these particular
plaques pay for them if they decide they indeed want them.

Excessive?  This I believe is also relative.  I imagine at some early point
in this contest's history people thought having more than 2, or 3, or 4
plaques was excessive, but they moved forward just the same.

I simply can't say it enough.  This is a major reason why this contest is so
good.  Lots of interaction.

Bob, N3FR  (portable WAR when the time comes!)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Raymer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PaQSO] I disagree

>I think it was Jim, K8MR that mentioned working all 67 county's on SSB
AND
>CW to qualify for the sweep award, and as a new set of 67 mults also.
Seems
>we've generated so much activity that getting the sweep is a little on
the
>easy side now. I've been lucky enough to get the sweep 5 or 6  years
>running...but seems I get it rather late in the contest each year. How
>about "Worked all countys CW AND SSB", or maybe two separate awards
>(worked

A Little Easy??????? I don't think it is easy to get a sweep when you
have mobiles that activate counties that have been dead for hours. Plus
you have a few that Run mobile QRP, making it worse for everyone to work
them.  Easy, This called being at the right time in the right place and
having your Packet DX cluster on! I  think it is a good idea to have 3
categories for the sweep, one for CW, SSB and one for Both.

Another thing, i hate to get like most other contests like FD or
something like that, but i think the possibility of adding a digital mode
to the Test would be interesting as well.

[email protected]

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
_______________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso