Yeah, I remember those days. Two-meter spotting nets that have been
replaced by packet cluster. Stations running "California Kilowatts."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Packet cluster is perfectly fine for those who want to enter in the
SOA category. They know the situation, and make the decision to enter
that category. It provides a much better opportunity for gaining more
mults, which increases the excitement for them. I can tell you that
after failing to get a sweep in SS for many years, it was a gigantic
kick to finally earn one in 2006, most likely due to spotting. My
station is low power (100 watts) a tribander and wires. I don't
compete at the highest levels, nor do I want to.
The problem is with a very few folks who push the limits way too far.
Don't kill contesting for the rest of us, or there won't be anyone for
you to contact!
On Dec 13, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Dick-w0raa wrote:
> Has anybody given thought to asking the people who own/operate the
> clusters, to voluntarily shut them down during contest periods?
> What did we
> do before there were clusters and packet? We fouind stations to
> work, the
> old fashioned way. We turned the knob and looked for them. God
> forbid we
> should have to do that today. What a horrible thought.
> So, why not just get all of them to voluntarily turn them off at the
> of a contest and then turn them back on at the end of the contest?
> I think
> it's doable, so why not do it? Then we'd find out if these big gun
> are as big gunned as they claim to be. It's certainly worth
> Also, all contests should be limited to 100 watts. Now there's
> where the
> cheating would go. Cheaters would be saying: "Me, more than 100
> watts? Not
> me, I follow the rules!"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <email@example.com>
> To: "Randy Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Untitled"
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
>> Assisted seems to have less competitors which translates to higher
>> I most cases if you are chasing spots you are probably not
>> winning. Run
>> run run run.
>> On 12/12/07 4:37 PM, "Randy Thompson" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Because some of us still like to do things the old fashioned way.
>>> All by
>>> ourselves! And we like the fact that we can compete in a category
>>> other people who feel the same way. Even makes it more fun when
>>> we can
>>> the packet assisted guys.
>>> I am against combining them because I like to be recognized as a
>>> guy who
>>> knows how to operate.
>>> I wouldn't mind if they were combined because then all the SOA
>>> guys who
>>> think they are competitive will realize that packet does not a
>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Yuri VE3DZ
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:08 PM
>>>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet
>>>> I don't like Dx Cluster, but the reality is - like it or not
>>>> - almost everyone is using it nowadays, one way or another. I
>>>> mean 99.9 % of the HAM stations have the capability of using
>>>> Dx Cluster today.
>>>> So, why not just allow it for all categories, like it was
>>>> done for WAE or Russian DX long time ago?
>>>> What are we afraid of here?
>>>> Yuri VE3DZ
> CQ-Contest mailing list
-Jack Brindle, W6FB
CQ-Contest mailing list