CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.

To: ku8e <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.
From: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 23:35:31 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
A lot of hams are indeed anti technology.

Anything beyond "a boy and his radio" twiddling knobs is viewed as
"not real ham radio."

It's a pervasive attitude in some circles in ham radio.

And it's against both basis and purpose and the amateur's code.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:58 PM ku8e <ku8e@ku8e.com> wrote:
>
> RiaMaybe you did but before that statement you stated that "Hams are 
> anti-technology". It seems to me you were suggesting that anyone who doesn't 
> embrace assisted technology such as skimmer was against technology. Most 
> serious contesters use lots of technology such as logging computers, radio 
> control, CW keying, voicekeyers etc...I didn't rant about anything. I was 
> just stating the facts. BTW not wanting to embrace technology isn't limited 
> to only amateur radio. I have many older friends and family that just like 
> doing things the way they always have.JeffSent from my Verizon, Samsung 
> Galaxy smartphone
> -------- Original message --------From: rjairam@gmail.com Date: 8/23/21  7:05 
> AM  (GMT-05:00) To: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector 
> <cq-contest@contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the 
> Future of Contesting. Re-read what I said. You read the first part then went 
> off on a rantbased on that alone.I did say you should have a choice. But 
> "Please, no, a thousand timesNO!" by Hans means that he doesn't want that 
> piece of tech to exist.THAT is being anti-technology.RiaN2RJOn Sun, Aug 22, 
> 2021 at 8:17 PM Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com> wrote:>> Ria,>> With all due 
> respect just because some of us of us don't want to use> certain technologies 
> doesn't make us "anti technology"? Do all of us> have to operate the same way 
> using the same technologies? Have you ever> thought that there are many 
> contesters who like to operate non-assisted> because it gives them more 
> personal satisfaction? Personally I get more> satisfaction finding my own 
> contacts and multipliers instead of> operating in a way that's like catching 
> fish in a barrel. I can> guarantee there are many contesters who have the 
> same feeling as I do. I> have no problem if people operate the way they want 
> to. (assisted or> non-assisted) Unfortunately the Single-Op rule changes in 
> CQ WPX has> taken away the option to choose the way you want to operate. 
> Pretty much> you have to operate assisted if you want to have a competitive 
> score.>> Jeff KU8E>>> On 8/22/2021 5:49 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:> > 97.1 
> Basis and purpose.> >> > ...> >> > (b) Continuation and extension of the 
> amateur's proven ability to> > contribute to the advancement of the radio 
> art.> >> > Hams being so anti technology is mind blowing. I have never seen 
> such> > a paradox except in ham radio.> >> > (yes, it also talks about skill 
> but that doesn't mean we have to shun> > technology).> >> > You don't have to 
> use a voice skimmer, but someone will invent it. I> > hope that contest rules 
> at least adapt to it - keep the unassisted> > categories (too late CQ WPX) 
> without skimmer but allow it for assisted> > or "unlimited" categories.> >> > 
> We already have the existing cluster with all of the "mechanical> > turks" 
> putting in DX spots anyway.> >> > 73> > Ria, N2RJ> >> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 
> at 10:01 PM Hans Brakob <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:> >> Please, no, a thousand 
> times NO!> >>> >> 73, de Hans, KØHB> >> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™> >> 
> ________________________________> >> From: CQ-Contest 
> <cq-contest-bounces+kzerohb=gmail.com@contesting.com> on behalf of Richard F 
> DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@gmail.com>> >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 7:25:35 
> AM> >> To: Frank Donovan W3LPL (Frank Donovan W3LPL) <donovanf@erols.com>> >> 
> Cc: reflector cq-contest <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>> >> Subject: Re: 
> [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.> >>> >> I guess the 
> logical follow-up is what's next:> >>> >> I vote for voice "skimmer"...> >>> 
> >> 73 Rich NN3W> >>> >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:18 AM <donovanf@erols.com> 
> wrote:> >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this Pete.> >>>> >>>> >>> Many of the 
> forecasts proved to be accurate, but as often happens> >>> with forecasts , 
> two of the most revolutionary changes that have> >>> greatly impacted 
> contesting were totally unanticipated:> >>>> >>>> >>> - CW Skimmer and its 
> associated Reverse Beacon Network, and> >>> - Explosive growth in the use of 
> digital error correcting protocols,> >>> especially FT8> >>>> >>>> >>> "It’s 
> tough to make predictions, especially about the future" – Yogi Berra> >>>> 
> >>> 73> >>> Frank> >>> W3LPL> >>>> >>> ----- Original Message -----> >>>> >>> 
> From: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <pete.n4zr@gmail.com>> >>> To: "reflector cq-contest" 
> <CQ-Contest@Contesting.COM>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 2:17:22 AM> 
> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.> >>>> 
> >>> In 2007, ES5TV compiled reflector users' predictions/guesses/wild-ass> 
> >>> guesses about what contesting would look like ten years hence. It's now> 
> >>> 4 years past his original time horizon, and I thought people would find> 
> >>> it interesting, so I've put it in my Dropbox account at> >>> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0> >>> 
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0>.> >>> 
> Feel free to download the pdf and giggle...> >>>> >>> --> >>> 73, Pete N4ZR> 
> >>> Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network> >>> web server at 
> <http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.> >>> For spots, please use your favorite> 
> >>> "retail" DX cluster.> >>>> >>> 
> _______________________________________________> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list> 
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> >>> 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> >>>> >> 
> _______________________________________________> >> CQ-Contest mailing list> 
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> >> 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> >> 
> _______________________________________________> >> CQ-Contest mailing list> 
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> >> 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> > 
> _______________________________________________> > CQ-Contest mailing list> > 
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> > 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest> 
> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> 
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com> 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
>  mailing 
> listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>