[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Not a Serious Contester Definition

To: <w2lc@twcny.rr.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Not a Serious Contester Definition
From: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:18:42 -0800
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I must stand corrected. From a few posts to the reflector and a couple
directly to me, there are serious contesters who don't use CAT control. I
apologize to those I offended.

However, apparently, there are not ANY serious contesters who don't use
computer logging. Now, would that have been the case not all that long ago?
I would guess that at some point in the future all serious contesters will
have CAT control.

I personally can't imagine having to remember to manually change band
settings in my logging program and manually change filters every time I
change bands, especially running SO2R, but if that is what you like to do or
need to do, more power to you. If you have a CAT capable radio, adding CAT
control is relatively inexpensive and will definitely add to your score
because you won't lose that mult where you forgot to change the band in the

The Russians appear to be on the leading edge of fighting to eliminate
cheating in contests. I don't particularly like the rule about allowing the
use of spotting networks in the single op category, but it is their contest
and their rules. It does absolutely eliminate the possibility of running
assisted and claiming unassisted.

73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT


CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>