I've been following the various recent SO2R debates with a sense of detached
amusement. It's amazing how many people responding have their own agendas,
or their own axes to grind, and often use this as a springboard for going
off on a tangent based on their agendas (or axes, as the case may be). So
if I may be permitted a few observations and then make a suggestion:
The core, key question remains: Has SO2R operating evolved to the point in
any given contest as to justify it as a separate category? It's a simple
question, but obviously the answer is anything but simple.
As K8IA & others have pointed out in some of these threads, SO2R is nothing
new, it was in practice in the 1950's and possibly earlier. Very few were
proficient at it -- but some where. And if you think about it (in terms of
the technologies of the day) it would have been easy to set a tape recorded
"CQ" on your "run" frequency on one band while tuning a "mult" transceiver
on another band. So why wasn't SO2R recognized as such back then? Again,
I suspect that was because so few could do it, and do it well, for any
length of time -- and in the days of hand written paper logs, detecting this
could be tough.
SO2R has evolved, thanks to various technologies and other radio system
improvements, to the point where there are a small but significant number of
individuals who are using it and, more importantly, becoming proficient at
it. I say, good for them! If they have the means and the will and the
energy to do so, why not? However, that does not address the key concern
that SO2R should be recognized as a distinct category.
SO Assisted -- ie Packet use -- is a good example of fairly recent advances
in technology that evolved into a separate category, and it makes sense as
such. It recognizes that many amateurs are using the spotting technology
(which is what Packet Cluster basically is), and it also recognizes that
this spotting is not exclusive to a small group but available to anyone
plugged into the cluster. This ability gives the SO-A op an obvious edge
because the computer screen can let him know where mults he's looking for
are, or where band openings are, something that the old-fashioned SO op does
not have at his fingertips. In short, it's enough of a difference and has
proven to be enough of an advantage, all else being more or less equal, to
justify it's existance as a separate category.
But again, does SO2R rate a separate category?
Now maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a body of concrete evidence that
SO2R gives an overwhelming edge over SO1R. I'm not saying it is or isn't
so -- I'm saying, let's see the data first and then draw a conclusion.
If -- IF -- SO2R proves, when all else is more or less equal, to be such a
huge advantage, then and only then does SO2R as a separate category make
sense. But like SO-A, we need to see the data first, not make a blind guess
(either way) and hope it's right.
So: What I'm suggesting is that contests considering SO2R as a future
category ask those entering as SO indicate whether they were SO1R or SO2R.
Contesters who would like to see SO2R should ask (not demand, ask) these
contest committees to consider doing this. Let's see if the data truly
supports a separate SO2R category before venting our assorted spleens any
more on the subject.
Remember, one of the purposes of the various entry categories in any contest
(be it power, number of operators, number of transmitters, or assorted
combinations thereof) is to recognize that different classes compete at
different levels. Obviously a multi-multi running beams and full KW's on
each station has a distinct advantage (or potential advantage) against a
single op running QRP on a vertical and a dipole! Having different
categories gives each entering station a chance to compete against peers --
or else the QRP station mentioned in the previous example, knowing he has no
chance to "win" against the aforementioned full bore M/M, will operate
sporadically if at all, leaving less stations for everyone else to contact.
It is not obvious that SO2R is neccesarily a significant advantage over
SO1R. Yeah -- it sounds like it should be, and obviously enough think it so
that more and more are setting up their stations to do so, but is it?
Only if we can collect the data to compare whether or not this is truly so
will we know. Otherwise we're just guessing.
73, ron wn3vaw
"Doc? You built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?"
"The way I look at it, if you're going to build a time machine out of a car,
you might as well do it with style!"
-- Marty McFly & Dr. Emmet Brown, "Back to the Future"
----- Original Message -----
From: <cq-contest-request@contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:35 PM
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [RTTY] Ahh yess.... the old SO2R debate! (Jerry Flanders)
2. Again? (Scott W4PA)
3. Re: Again?
4. Re: Again? (K4SB)
5. Re: Again? (Richard Zalewski)
6. RE: Again? (Dale L Martin)
7. Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again? (Bob Naumann - N5NJ)
8. Re: Again? (K?HB)
9. Re: Again? (k5zm)
10. Re: Again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
To: tgstewart@pepco.com, Tom Moore <wx4tm@direcway.com>
Cc: WI8W <wi8w@arrl.net>
Cc: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: [RTTY] Ahh yess.... the old SO2R debate!
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030124161005.025ef5e0@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Precedence: list
Message: 1
I think we already have started towards segregating the SO2R operator - at
least one contest does not allow unlimited band-changing between QSOs. This
effectively kills unlimited SO2R for conventional SOAB in that contest.
See the rules for last year's BARTG Spring RTTY
contest http://www.bartg.demon.co.uk/Contests/02_rules.htm : "SOAB
entrants may only change band once in any 5 minute period".
There is a different class, "Expert", if you change more frequently (i.e,
SO2R).
Jerry Flanders W4UK
At 10:09 1/24/03 -0500, tgstewart@pepco.com wrote:
>As I've pointed out many times before, the SOnR has always been perfectly
>legal in the Single Op category (as long as there is only one transmitter
>on at a time).
>
>Therefore, any restriction on operating flexibility like that would have
>to become a new category called Single Op Limited (SOL) or SOSR or
>whatever, which could also include other restrictions such as antennas,
>power, operating time if you like.
>
>Single Op records have been set for decades using the existing rules and
>making any major change like that would void the significance of any past
>performance in the class.
>
>My point is, if you are the one having the problem with the existing
>category, it is up to you and whoever else to create a new category for
>you rather than trying to kick the SO2R guys out of their category. You
>can then start your own set of records for the Limited class that will
>have relevance.
>
>For some reason, the few people I've confronted with this distinction dont
>quite seem to "get it"! Hi!
>
>73, Ty K3MM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Tom Moore" <wx4tm@direcway.com>
>Sent by: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
>01/24/2003 08:17 AM
>
>
> To: "WI8W" <wi8w@arrl.net>, <rtty@contesting.com>
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Club Competition in 2004 RTTY Roundup
>
>
>I may be off a year or so in the following, but as I recall:
>
>at the 2000 dayton hamvention rtty forum, 100+ rtty contesters
>voted overwhelmingly that SO2R should be a separate contest
>category..
>
>during the following year, the reflectors were often crowded
>with heated discussion on this issue..
>
>at the 2001 dayton hamvention rtty forum, it was said up front
>that no disucssion would be allowed on the SO2R separate
>category issue..
>
>at the 2002 hamvention, the rtty forum focused on how to do
>SO2R but refused to allow disucssion on the separate category
>issue..
>
>Throughout this period, not one single contest sponsor has
>publicly or directly addressed this issue until two members of
>the arrl hudson div finally were able to get the issue on the agenda
>for the recent arrl msc meeting.. at which, the committee apparently
>felt there was not sufficient interest on this issue to warrant
>studying.
>
>Contest sponsors and log checkers are not looking for extra work
>and they are prone to not being willing to change anything until publicly
>forced to do so. So as I see it, while there appears to be a majority
>of rtty contesters who agree that SO2R should be a separate category,
>no one has stepped forward to organize an effort to present a clear and
>convinceable case to contest organizers proving their rules are grossly
>unfair to the average SO1R contest participant. Until that happens, I
>doubt we'll ever see any change..
>
>Tom WX4TM
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "WI8W" <wi8w@arrl.net>
>To: <rtty@contesting.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 6:00 AM
>Subject: RE: [RTTY] Club Competition in 2004 RTTY Roundup
>
>
> > leave it to the ARRL to once again close the door after the horse has
>gotten
> > out of the barn. I wonder how many years they have been pondering this
> > little tidbit. I wonder how many years before the popular SO2R will be
>a
> > separate catagory. They have yet another horse in that barn. soapbox
>off.
> >
> > yep, I am a life member of the league
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Thom WI8W
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: Scott W4PA <w4pa@yahoo.com>
To: Tom Moore <wx4tm@direcway.com>, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <20030124201517.88842.qmail@web40909.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030124161005.025ef5e0@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 2
WX4TM:
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
Scott Robbins, W4PA
> So as I see it, while there appears to be a majority
> >of rtty contesters who agree that SO2R should be a separate
> category, no one has stepped forward to organize an effort to present
> a clear and convinceable case to contest organizers proving their >
>rules are grossly unfair to the average SO1R contest participant.
>Until that happens, I doubt we'll ever see any change..
> >
> >Tom WX4TM
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
------------------------------
From: BobK8IA@aol.com
To: w4pa@yahoo.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <145.899cfb9.2b62fc30@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 3
In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
w4pa@yahoo.com writes:
> Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
>
> We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
>
> Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
>
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
>
>
Hi Scott;
Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time SSers
W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
technology was just different then.
Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology to
able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective SO2R
thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that can!
73,Bob K8IA
Mesa, Arizona USA
near the Superstition Mtns
------------------------------
From: K4SB <k4sb@earthlink.net>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <3E31A4E1.821C8B40@earthlink.net>
References: <20030124201517.88842.qmail@web40909.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 4
> Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
>
> We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
>
> Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
>
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
Why would making SO2R a seperate category "inhibit competitive
operating practices"?
No one is suggesting you not develop operator ability.
What you are saying is you want to be a "Joe Lewis" fighting a light
welterweight.
After all, weren't the initial rules of boxing the same?
73
Ed
------------------------------
From: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
To: <BobK8IA@aol.com>, <w4pa@yahoo.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <002701c2c3e9$5fb79be0$02fea8c0@n1>
References: <145.899cfb9.2b62fc30@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 5
"Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology to
able them to compete at a higher level."
Packet radio is a legitimate technology yet most contests put use of that
technology
into a separate class.
Dick W7ZR
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobK8IA@aol.com>
To: <w4pa@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
> In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> w4pa@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> > developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> > years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
> >
> > We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> > practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> > of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
> >
> > Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
> >
> > Scott Robbins, W4PA
> >
> >
>
> Hi Scott;
>
> Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
> evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
SSers
> W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
> technology was just different then.
>
> Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
to
> able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective
SO2R
> thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that can!
>
> 73,Bob K8IA
> Mesa, Arizona USA
> near the Superstition Mtns
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Dale L Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <MCBBJAHBAIHDJKDNKBBIEEGJCGAA.kg5u@hal-pc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030124201517.88842.qmail@web40909.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 6
When are people going to realize that performance and ability in contests
does not and should not matter.
Participation, no matter how inept or expert, is what's important.
It is demeaning and degrading to assign ranking based solely on score.
Oh, for the day when just the calls are listed and no scores. Then, surely,
contest participation will increase beyond our wildest imaginings.
Towards that end, and once that grossly unfair SO2R has been relegated to
it's own category, I propose that limits be imposed on those operators in
whatever category who exceeed CQ mode or S&P mode QSO rates that are greater
than that of the slowest contest operator.
Any rates above that limit must be construed as unfair as that operator
obviously operating at a distinct and unfair advantage over his competitors
and therefore must be restrained.
73,
dale, kg5u
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Scott W4PA
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:15 PM
> To: Tom Moore; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Again?
>
>
> WX4TM:
>
> Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
>
> We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
>
> Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
>
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
>
> > So as I see it, while there appears to be a majority
> > >of rtty contesters who agree that SO2R should be a separate
> > category, no one has stepped forward to organize an effort to present
> > a clear and convinceable case to contest organizers proving their >
> >rules are grossly unfair to the average SO1R contest participant.
> >Until that happens, I doubt we'll ever see any change..
> > >
> > >Tom WX4TM
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
From: Bob Naumann - N5NJ <bob.naumann@gte.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <20030124210610.TYWY3094.out003.verizon.net@[127.0.0.1]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: n5nj@gte.net
Message: 7
Dick,
The clear distinction is that with packet, you have involved other operators
with you which then means that you are no longer single-operator.
All of the other things that are part of a SO2R set up are things you, as a
single operator control and use.
This distinction is why there are other categories for packet use that are
properly named such as:
Single-Op Plus Packet
Single-Op Plus Net
Single-Op Assisted
etc.
Those contests that do not draw a distinction between packet use and single
op, have essentially changed to a Single-Op Assisted only. There is no
category for single operator in those contests any longer. I believe that
the WAE is this way now.
73,
Bob
N5NJ
>
> From: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
> To: <BobK8IA@aol.com>, <w4pa@yahoo.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
>
> "Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
to
> able them to compete at a higher level."
>
> Packet radio is a legitimate technology yet most contests put use of that
> technology
> into a separate class.
>
> Dick W7ZR
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobK8IA@aol.com>
> To: <w4pa@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
>
>
> > In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > w4pa@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> > > developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> > > years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
> > >
> > > We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> > > practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> > > of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
> > >
> > > Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
> > >
> > > Scott Robbins, W4PA
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Scott;
> >
> > Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
> > evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
> SSers
> > W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
> > technology was just different then.
> >
> > Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
> to
> > able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective
> SO2R
> > thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that
can!
> >
> > 73,Bob K8IA
> > Mesa, Arizona USA
> > near the Superstition Mtns
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
------------------------------
From: "K?HB" <k0hb@earthlink.net>
To: <BobK8IA@aol.com>, <w4pa@yahoo.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <00ed01c2c3ed$5619ebc0$f08c2d41@bigguy>
References: <145.899cfb9.2b62fc30@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: K?HB <K0HB@ARRL.ORG>
Message: 8
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobK8IA@aol.com>
> Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
> evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
SSers
> W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
> technology was just different then.
EXACTLY!
I don't have the skill set to pull it off, but I admire those who do.
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift
73, de Hans, K0HB
------------------------------
From: "k5zm" <k5zm@attbi.com>
To: "Dale L Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID: <00a401c2c3ed$780bcd20$209be70c@attbi.com>
References: <MCBBJAHBAIHDJKDNKBBIEEGJCGAA.kg5u@hal-pc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 9
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale L Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: 2003-Jan-24 20:53
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Again?
>
> When are people going to realize that performance and ability in contests
> does not and should not matter.
>
> Participation, no matter how inept or expert, is what's important.
Very, very well said.
As for the rest of your comments, I'll assume a great deal of
sarcasm.
73,
Ian, K5ZM
------------------------------
From: tgstewart@pepco.com
To: BobK8IA@aol.com
Cc: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: w4pa@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
Message-ID:
<OF4EFCC686.3AC28FE6-ON85256CB8.00758C56-85256CB8.007654ED@pepco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 10
Actually, I believe when this first occurred decades ago, there was no
rule against multiple transmitters in single op. The word "octopus" comes
to mind from long ago...
Ty K3MM
BobK8IA@aol.com
Sent by: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
01/24/2003 03:29 PM
To: w4pa@yahoo.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
w4pa@yahoo.com writes:
> Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
>
> We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
>
> Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
>
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
>
>
Hi Scott;
Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
SSers
W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
technology was just different then.
Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
to
able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective
SO2R
thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that can!
73,Bob K8IA
Mesa, Arizona USA
near the Superstition Mtns
_______________________________________________
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
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
****************************************
|