Mike, thanks for your kind words, even in the context of vehement
disagreement.
The basic reason why I took such strong exception to the idea of pure
pay-to-play is that it seems to me part of a pernicious trend. Why go
to the trouble of learning all we do in the course of building a
station? Why go through the exhilarating experience of trying, and
failing, and trying, and eventually succeeding? Now you can just pay
for air time.
Maybe I'm just getting old (actually I know I am), but when someone sets
out to make money this way I *do* hope they fail. Not as hams, or as
people, but as a business.
I know a guy who has a super station, but is now so ill that he can't
use it. Another local ham has taken on the responsibility (with
volunteer help) of maintaining the station, and has set it up so that a
mix of on-site and remote operators can put it on the air as a multi-multi.
As we all know, one of the really big challenges of putting a multi-op
on the air is recruiting a big-enough pool of operators who can devote
entire weekends to on-site operating. This way, operators who can only
put in 12 hours, or 24, can do so. To me, this is a really positive
example of the application of new technology, and guess what - nobody
pays or receives a dime for all this.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 4/16/2013 4:37 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
....Do I ever wish for other hams or people to fail miserably? NEVER
and I am really shocked to see this from a guy that given so much to
ham radio and contesting.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|