[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] About Remote Contesting

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] About Remote Contesting
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:25:57 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Paul, it sure would be a lot easier to stomach your posts if you 
presented them as your opinion instead of pronouncements of fact, the 
latter being something you really don't have the right to presume.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that there is an inherent disconnect 
in how you view an amateur radio contact compared with most of the rest 
of us.   You seem to presume that a valid amateur radio contact is 
defined as being between two OPERATORS while I and others (including 
virtually all of the major contests sponsors) define it (intentionally 
or by default, and whether they actually realize it or not) as being 
between two STATIONS ... transmitter, receiver, antennas, etc ... under 
the direct control of an operator.    In essence, you want the contact 
to somehow represent an exclusively RF path between the two operators, 
while the rest of us are quite satisfied to have it be exclusively RF 
between the two stations.

There is a huge difference in those two concepts of a valid path for a 
contact, and I sincerely doubt that a theoretical or moral judgment can 
be made on why either one is better than the other.  Saying otherwise 
three times (or thirty times in your case) doesn't make it so.  From a 
practical point of view, it seems obvious (but not fact) that the 
station definition wins out.

Dave   AB7E

On 2/27/2011 1:06 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 27/02/2011 16:29, Pete Smith wrote:
>> Paul, as Hans and others have tried to point out, this is ridiculously
>> over the top and out of touch with reality.
> Then, let's try a reality check.
>     There is a huge difference
>> between using the Internet for the actual communication between two
>> *stations*, and using it as, in effect, an extra-long headphone cord.
> In either scenario, there can be no QSO without
> the internet.
> Amateur radio is independent of the internet.
> Otherwise, we would call it something else.
> That's reality.
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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