I am amazed at the callsigns I'm seeing on this petition to BAN technology!
It leads me to believe there is unprecedented cheating going on in this
petition process. If these petitioners REALLY believe technology should be
banned, then we should start banning other technology advancements as well.
And make them retroactive:
First, let's ban SSB. AM has proven to be an adequate voice communication
Next, let's ban transceivers. A separate receiver and transmitter has proven
to be more effective in working split operations.
Then, let's ban yagi's and towers. You will improve neighborhood goodwill,
improve esthetics, and increase property values in one fell-swoop.
Finally, why don't we just ban Amateur Radio altogether? It has been proven
your time can be more effective when applied to productivity increases and
income generation instead of sitting in front of a box of electronics
shouting "QSL 59 04!" all weekend. Get a part-time job instead.
Oh, and all the transistors, chips, and tubes that are no longer in service
will help offset the Global Warming crisis we are currently suffering. So I
suppose this petition sounds like a win-win situation to many people.
Give me a break!
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have
to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Franklin D Roosevelt, 1933.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renner, PY7RP" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Res: Petition to Ban Skimmer
> Hi Guys,
> I agree with Pete, Why ban the technology?
> That is a stupid petition.
> Somebody could think even that people working
> with DSP would be in advantage to others who doenst.
> As the example above, we could say the same with:
> Computer Logging, Digital Voice recording, PC
> Cw keying etc etc etc...
> There is no way to stop or how to equalize the strenght
> of the stations on a really fair play game on the air.
> And be happy with that! hI! Hi!
> Who wanna compete in real a strenght, radiosport
> is not the most indicated! hi!
> 73 es DX
> ----- Mensagem original ----
> De: Pete Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Para: email@example.com
> Enviadas: Terça-feira, 6 de Maio de 2008 9:43:24
> Assunto: [CQ-Contest] Petition to Ban Skimmer
> I'm intrigued to note that while this petition has been being pushed
> through individual e-mails, it has not yet even been mentioned on
> cq-contest. Could it be that the sponsors realize theirs is a minority
> position, and want to get as much of a head-start as they can?
> I think it's ironic that those who are leading the charge to ban this
> particular technology are also those who are most over-estimating its
> impact. I began working with Skimmer believing it would be a real contest
> paradigm-changer. I still believe this is true for a few specific cases,
> such as CW Sweepstakes. For the rest, though, I think the impact will be
> very similar to packet, and will mostly overlap. The same foolish people
> who over-rely on packet will over-rely on Skimmer, and will pay the price.
> People who cheat with packet will probably add Skimmer to their arsenals.
> It will be harder to catch through statistical analyses (since you won't
> able to know, for sure, when a given station was first heard by a given
> Skimmer), but greedy cheaters will still be catchable, and cautious ones
> still won't be.
> Banning the technology from contests will have no useful effect. By all
> means, retain a single-op unassisted class without it (like packet), and
> let the marketplace decide.
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list