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.
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.
> Paul EI5DI
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list