[Cwo] [Fwd: Re: proposed CW Open IV changes]

[Jim]

And what about August 23?


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: k6rb at baymoon.com 
Date: 09/16/2013  5:49 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Jim <jtalens at verizon.net> 
Cc: k6rb at baymoon.com,cwo at kkn.net 
Subject: RE: [Cwo] [Fwd: Re:  proposed CW Open IV changes] 
 
Boy, there's a strong endorsement :-). I have to respectfully disagree with Hank. On Sep 6 we conflict IN TIME with no one!!! So, if someone who plans to do Sprint feels a need to drink lots of Gatorade, do plenty of pushups, and practice some Zen meditation beforehand, that person may not show up for one session (session 3). Or may only do 1 or 2 hours of session 3.
 
On Sep 20, we conflict with SAC over two full sessions, concurrently!!!
 
On Sep 27, we conflict with TQP over two full sessions, concurrently!!!
 
Can we get real, here? We've been holding CW Open on weekends where many US people travel (Labor Day). We've even gone head-to-head with an RU and JA contest. Now, we're fretting over a situation where we do not conflict AT ALL???
 
If there was another Saturday where we had no conflicts, of course I would opt for that. But, here we have a choice of three: one with no time conflicts, one with 8 hours of conflict; and another one with 8 hours of conflict.
 
In fact, let me say that I'm in favor, under the present circumstances, in doing CW Open on Sep 6 AND NOT adjusting the session 3 time at all. I disagree with Al that shifting the time will make any difference. Someone who is going to blow off session 3 to prepare for Sprint is going to do it unless there's 8 hours difference. Why should we change our times?
 
CW Sprint used to bang into a phone or RTTY contest, at one point, and 40 meters was completely unusable. Sure, we grumbled, but we did it, anyway. Here, there will be no QRM with Sprint.
 
I know I'm not going to win a popularity contest with Hank (even though he's my favorite exuberant skier), but we are between a rock and hard place, here, and I just don't see the conflict-less situation with Sprint having the same gravitas as the others.
 
So, Jim, I disagree without equivocation.
 
Rob K6RB
 
 
 
I agree with Hank, I suppose.

 

 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: k6rb at baymoon.com 
Date: 09/16/2013 5:12 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: cwo at kkn.net 
Subject: [Cwo] [Fwd: Re: proposed CW Open IV changes] 


One comment....
 

 

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- 
Subject: Re: [Cwo] proposed CW Open IV changes 
From: "Hank Garretson" 
Date: Mon, 16 September, 2013 11:22 am 
To: "Rob" 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

I don't think CWO and CW Sprint same weekend is a good thing. For me at least, it would mean that I would put less emphasis on CWO. 

 
CQWW RTTY weekend is a nonstarter.

 
To me, the least of all evils and best for CWops is to unfortunately conflict with SAC CW and some state QSO parties. 

73,

 
Hank, W6SX


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:20 AM, k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:
Date: 6 Sep 2014

Session 1: 0000-0400Z

Session 2: 1200-1600Z

Session 3: 1800-2200Z

Comments?


_______________________________________________
Cwo mailing list
Cwo at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20130916/dee3e9c2/attachment.html