In a message dated 12/19/2006 6:36:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,
tree@kkn.net writes:
If you banish the distinction between the two - you have now put the top
operators into the position of having to adopt the technology in order to
not lose to other top operators who are adopting
Tree, I agree with you on this, to an extent. What make "top" ops is the
fact that they are, well, "top" of the heap. Putting them in a position of
learning new technology should not be a problem. I mean this, assume the new
thing to stay competitive is a new, undiscovered antenna. I promise you, the
top
operators will adapt, without problem, to meet the challenge. Learning
packet, not so much of a problem.
Staying competitive never has been a problem with our top guys. Just look at
what technology has brought us in the past 30 years of contesting...Computer
logging, computer generated CW, DVK, many stacked antennas-multiple
towers-all controlled by simple in shack switching, stacked 40m yagi's, even
many
80 meter yagis. Did I mention easy SO2R setups??? Of course, some of this was
used 30 years ago, but, not nearly as widespread, or easy to obtain as then.
This stuff, to me at least, makes packet look like child's play.
Adaptation has been around as long as competitive operating has.
73- Chuck KI9A
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|