> > The point is IT'S THE ANTENNAS and LOCATION that make the
> > difference in many cases. Not SO2R.
The point I have made for over a year ... SO2R is but one tool
and certainly not THE tool that is so dominant that it makes all
Again, if you want to give your jihad for a separate SO2R
(or SO1R) entry class any intellectual validity, start by
establishing a class that prohibits antennas higher than 49
feet (15 meters) and with elements totaling no more than one
half wavelength. Add a "single transceiver" requirement to
that class if you want. Beyond that there is no justification
for limiting the operator's choice of tools (within the rules)
- whether it be bigger antennas, SOnR, computer assisted
logging, memory keyer assisted CW, Voice Keyer assisted SSB,
or DSP enhanced RTTY - he uses to increase his score.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Category
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:01:52 -0500, "Edward" <email@example.com>
> >The point is IT'S THE ANTENNAS and LOCATION that make the
> >difference in many cases. Not SO2R.
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> Since your second radio is no help, what kind is it and how much do
> you want for it?
> I didn't think so. :-)
> 73, Bill W6WRT
CQ-Contest mailing list