On 26/02/2011 03:18, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> As long as all his transmitters, receivers, and antenna are inside the
> 500-meter circle, why do we care how long his mike cord is?
Microphone/key and phones are necessary parts of
station equipment, and they all belong within the
> Remote control is perfectly legal,
There are other things that are perfectly legal,
and yet have no place in amateur radio contesting.
> and gives no particular advantage
Of course, remote control gives an advantage.
If it didn't, no one would consider using it.
> In fact we probably could
> make a persuasive case that the remote operator is disadvantaged by
> "path lag" in the controlpoint-to-station link.
We're back to the "I'm special" argument - I'm
making things harder for myself, and therefore
I deserve concessions in other respects.
> If the rules don't prohibit this configuration, your
> "kind of cheating" notion has a distinct Luddite ring
> to it.
The RDXC rules appear to prohibit remote control.
They may be Luddites too :-)
On 26/02/2011 06:18, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> The arguments shown in my words actually reflects
> what others have said to me when I had my doubts about remote
> contesting operation...
I accept that, and in my reply I have repeated
the arguments against remote-control in contests.
> Remote is not my cup of tea, but I know many persons who do like to
> explore this way of operation,
Experimenting is always to be encouraged, except
when it conflicts with contest rules.
> and as CQWW apparently even agrees for
> this type of operation from another country (correct
> me if I am wrong),
I'd be concerned if CQ, or ARRL, accepted entries
from unlicensed operations. Any such operation
which relies on CEPT arrangements alone is, in fact,
> Contesting is fun, but not a struggle of life and death, is it?
Serious contesting, in common with other serious
competitive sporting activities, is not just fun.
Those who are in it to win take it seriously.
CQ-Contest mailing list