I think the idea here is to ban Skimmer ** in a contest **, not ban it in
general. People still use motors on the backs of their boats, they just can't
use them in the America's Cup. People use aluminum bats every day of the week,
just not in the majors. If contesting gets to the point where it's Station A
versus Station B and the operators are less than relevant, then it's over. I'd
rather get beat by a better operator than by bigger machines.
73 Steve K0SR
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc@pclink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 02:43 PM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Res: Petition to Ban Skimmer
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 mode. 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" To: 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 >
Renner/PY7RP > > > > ----- Mensagem original ---- > De: Pete Smith > Para:
cq-contest@contesting.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 > be > 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 >
CQ-Contest@contesting.com >
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest > > > > Abra sua conta
no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para > armazenamento! >
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ >
CQ-Contest mailing list > CQ-Contest@contesting.com >
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest >
_______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|