Can anyone tell me the earliest possible date for people to submit their emails to James M0ZZO to ask him to reconsider P100 for the G association. I seem to remember that it is due for reconsideration some time during next month. Thanks.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
"Post by M0ZZO on 2nd June 2008 at 12:04
Hi Everyone
Thanks to everyone who wrote concerning the topic of P150 v P100. I received comments from 27 people in total. Of these, 15 were in favour of the status quo and 12 would like to see a change.
Clearly there is not enough interest in change to warrant further investigation.
Let us leave this one to have a rest for at least 12 months. even then I would only like to reopen the debate if anyone has something new to say or circumstances have changed in some way.
73,
James M0ZZO "
So I make that a week on Tuesday Barry 
Roger G4OWG
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Hi Mike
I think James’ email address is in the England ARM - you could try asking him.
73
Richard
G3CWI
In reply to G4OWG:
Thanks for that info Roger so 2nd of June it is.
Due to the rumpus and controversy last time, it would be far better to do it by other means than email this time with full transparancy. That way would certainly satisfy any doubters.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to G3CWI:
You seem to have confused me with someone else Richard.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
UK P500 list and challenge is published today.
http://www.prominentpeaks.org.uk
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Thanks for that info Roger so 2nd of June it is.
So today it is Barry!
New participants and others may wish to review the thoughts that have been expressed on the issue of P100 for England. They can find information under the following threads:
More summits in G-Land
Humps - yes or no.
What a wasted opportunity, but no surprise.
General Rules review and update.
Comments and opinions to go to James M0ZZO who can be contacted via the email address given on page 4 of the England ARM which can be found at –
I will be sending an email direct to M0ZZO but would like to state in public that I would like to see P100. I do not trust the way this matter will be handled in private hence my public vote.
I am one of the 40 people that have voted for P100 on the Adventure radio forum, and notice that 7 have voted against.
Steve
PS its also worth noting that 2E0NBR is also in favor of P100
In reply to All:
I too would like to see P100, as it means I will be able to do more SOTA on some of the smaller hills. I have sent my email to James too, from my iPhone at lunchtime !!
Morgan
M3LMP
Hi Everyone
Do feel free to send comments direct to my mailbox. James@mcginty.net
Please do not treat this as a vote and simply send emails saying “I vote for P100” or anything similar.
I agreed to review the matter at this time, but only if people had new evidence to submit that would support a change.
Last year(from memory as I am away from home at present) the discussion included but was not restricted to.
Distance traveled
Fuel consumed
overall cost
Ability / disabilty of activators
Variety / number of hills available
Level of activity
So please only contact me if your reasons for wanting a change from P150 to P100 do not include any of the above.
I will look at the volume of people submitting fresh reasoning and then state my position before inviting any further discussion.
73,
James M0ZZO
In reply to M0ZZO:
Last year(from memory as I am away from home at present) the
discussion included but was not restricted to.Distance traveled
Fuel consumed
overall cost
Ability / disabilty of activators
Variety / number of hills available
Level of activitySo please only contact me if your reasons for wanting a change from
P150 to P100 do not include any of the above.
So are you saying James that the above reasons have been noted and are still considered to be valid, or are you saying that you are discounting them? Regardless of the numbers that support a change or wish to see the status quo, I trust that it is the former. Anyway, I don’t understand your reason for not wanting to receive representations based on the above - what about those that consider one or more of those reasons to be their reason(s) for supporting a change to P100? Surely this is not a tactic to limit the yes vote, is it?
Gerald
In reply to G4OIG:
I read it as if someone had already contacted James and expressed a desire for change based on the listed reasons then not to contact James again unless they had something in addition to those reasons but that this didn’t apply to people expressing a position for the 1st time. Of course I may be wrong about this.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to M0ZZO:
I agreed to review the matter at this time, but only if people had new
evidence to submit that would support a change.
So please only contact me if your reasons for wanting a change from
P150 to P100 do not include any of the above.I will look at the volume of people submitting fresh reasoning and
then state my position before inviting any further discussion.
James,
I have been ‘chewing’ over you posting for a few days, and the more I look at it, the less I like what you seem to be saying.
You seem to be saying that, even if there are more (perhaps newer) chasers & activators who were not involved in expressing their views last year, if their reasons for wanting a move to P100 are the same as were expressed before they should not bother getting in touch with you. Surely, that can’t be right.
It seems you are only interested in ‘new reasoning’. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what ‘new reasoning’ you would consider valid. How about the fact that some other associations now have P100?.
If I have misunderstood what you are saying, though your words seem unambiguous to me, I stand to be corrected.
Mike G4BLH
Other associations having P100 is not a relevant issue, in my opinion. The General Rules suggest P150 for all associations, with P100 being a possible special consideration to assist with an association’s viability. Hence P100 in PA, ON and HA (for instance), while in DM/DL, the special request was in order to mitigate the loss of many summits when the rule on prominence was tightened up. Either way, P100 was an option to assist the viability of an association.
G is, and always has been the most ‘viable’ SOTA association. It is hugely successful, and it’s viability cannot possibly be in question. So it does not need tinkering with, having its character changed, goalposts moved or parameters altered. In my opinion, it should remain as P150 just like the rest of the UK and most other SOTA associations around the world. It does not need to be considered a special case that needs the assistance of P100. I love it just the way it is.
Tom M1EYP (over 200 uniques and still loads to go at)
In reply to M1EYP:
Ah, so we are posting our opinions here are we? I thought the MO was to email James with opinions.
Gerald G4OIG (also with over 200 uniques and loads to go at, but recognising that many are not as fortunate as I am and probably never will be! Campaigning on behalf of the activators of the future and those that live out of the mainstream area for SOTA in England).
Its strange that G is the most viable association. Ive just been reading John GW4BVE`s statistics on http://www.summitsbase.org.uk/tiki-index.php?page=Summit+Statistics+Archive & the signs are it may not hold that mantle for much longer as activity reduces.
Steve G1INK (357 uniques & saving up for more diesel to do more)
In reply to G1INK:
I note the article analyses UK activator to UK chaser stats. I wonder what it would say if it were English activator to any chaser? e.g. Some English activators only use 40/30/20 and thus get chased less frequently by UK stations (due to propagation).
Lies, damned lies and statistics 
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to G1INK:
It is in any case an irrelevance. For those that enjoy teasing out statistics, the significant figure as I see it is summit density - take the Association surface area and divide by the total number of summits for a figure representing the density. I have not got the time to do this at present, but my gut feeling is that in the north the density will be high (e.g. a low number) but in the south the density will be comparable to the current P100 Associations (e.g. a high number.) Does someone want to have a crack at this, compute summit densities for north and south of a line from the Wash to the Bristol Channel and compare the south figure with the P100 Associations?
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G0AZS:
It seems you only read the first article Marc.
In reply to G4BLH:
You seem to be saying that, even if there are more (perhaps newer)
chasers & activators who were not involved in expressing their
views last year, if their reasons for wanting a move to P100 are the
same as were expressed before they should not bother getting in touch
with you. Surely, that can’t be right.
Except he doesn’t say that. He says to send him new reasons for a change not yet discussed/argued about/considered.
Then he’ll make a statement about his position.
Then there’ll be further discussion.
I stand to be corrected.
Please stand corrected. 
Andy
MM0FMF