Bill Turner wrote:
> No need for the insults, Barry.
> We are not whiners and we are fully grown up, and yes, we know life
> isn't always fair. However, that doesn't mean that unfairness should
> be encouraged or rewarded.
> No one is asking for a guaranteed win, only for competition on an
> equal basis, as much as possible. Of course stations will never be
> exactly equal and we realize that, but in the past new categories
> have been created when it became apparent that some kinds of
> operation had significant advantages: HP vs LP, MO vs SO, assisted vs
> unassisted. We feel the same applies to SO1R vs SO2R and the time
> has come to recognize the fact.
> Don, AA5AU, has been quoted as saying SO2R has a score advantage of
> about 40% or so. Don't you think that is significant? I do.
Bill,
Thanks for the very well written response above.
First, fellow hams don't deserve insults and sarcasm for stating their
opinions.
Next, I do think AA5AU's quote of 40% advantage *is* significant.
Also, it's my opinion that those that talk about antennas and beams are
truly missing the point; yes, some can cheat and use a big/temporary
antenna, but they could also cheat by using their amp and saying they
are in the LP category or cheat 50 other ways That's really *not* the
issue. The issue *is* that the 40% advantage of SO2R should merit its
own category.
Finally, I think your original proposal quoted below is a GREAT idea and
hope some contest sponsors give it serious consideration.
> 1. Limited class: One radio, no spotting, moderate antennas, i.e. the
> Old Way.
> 2. Unlimited class: Anything legal goes.
> Those classes define hardware only. Within them you could have single
> or multi op and high or low power. [and needless to say, SO2R]
73,
Carter K8VT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|