It seems as though this conversation centres a lot around the question of
progress.
Is it the role of amateur radio to stand by and let the world advance around
it?
I would say no, and I'm sure that in the larger context, even our Irish
friend would agree, especially since I don't hear him using a spark gap.
The question, then, is at what point does technology become unsuitable for
contests of skill?
Sure, it would be a whole lot quicker and easier to run a marathon on a
Segway, but that's not the point of a marathon, is it? Similarly, golf would
be a whole lot easier if, say, Phil Mickelson could take out a range finder
and determine EXACTLY how far the hole is away. Chess games would be so much
more efficient if each grand master could consult a computer on each move.
(I think these examples are better than the sailboat/powerboat thing.)
So: Is a DX contest merely a test of how quickly you can pack points into a
log? Or is it a test of the whole bag of skills that go in to the art of
working DX? Or is it a test of your ability to integrate all available
technology into a winning score?
Where does that line get crossed? If I don't even have to decode a QSO
myself; if I don't have to turn that big knob myself and find the rare ones
others don't; if I don't have to develop my own understanding of propagation
and paths and openings from my QTH myself; if I don't even have to be in the
same room, then what of my skills am I demonstrating?
Or is it enough to say that there's an unlimited category and those who want
to push the envelope compete by themselves and those who want to stay
traditional can stay in the unassisted?
Kelly
ve4xt
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|