At 09:58 AM 6/4/2008, Randy Thompson wrote:
>Does anyone else find it funny that the guy advocating for skimmer on the
>grounds of technology advancement is then arguing that contacts should
>require a human to be manually involved?
>
>If we can make rules requiring human involvement (I assume as a way of
>keeping it a human sport rather than a robot/technology exercise), then why
>can't we draw the same line around the skimmer? I.e., we want to keep
>humans in the call finding business rather than having skimmer do it.
Or why not, for that sort, allow both types of operation to co-exist, and
let the operators decide which class they want to enter. I think the whole
focus on "assistance" is misguided - but the fact is that in some contests,
Skimmer will be the sort of game-changer that packet was touted to be, a
decade ago. As such, I do not believe it should be allowed in the base
single-op category, but it would be silly to try to ban it from single-op
entirely.
73, Pete N4ZR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|