Or how about a limited rover category-like the limited multiop? It would
include anyone who goes roving with 4 bands or less?
73s John NE0P
----- Original Message -----
From: "T. M." <k7xc@charter.net>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHF Contesting: Fixing the Grid Circling
> Bob, (and all)
>
> Your statement (as quoted below my comments) cant be any further from the
> truth if you tried...
>
> I started the "Pack Rover" thread due to comments made online by fellow
> Rovers who were thinking of Abandoning ROVER Operations as the Pack Rover
> teams have such a clearly unfair advantage, so why even bother to invest
the
> time, energy, and money needed to put on a good effort.
>
> After thinking about it, I decided to finally say something and propose
that
> "Pack Rovers" should be in their own category as it is a simple solution
to
> such a highly charged political situation. It lets them do what they do
and
> traditional Rovers do what we do. No need to change anything else, not one
> other change is needed, or wanted!
>
> Why do I say "Political"? Just the mention of "Rover contesting" brings
out
> the hourds of Rover haters with their rather silly ideas of what a Rover
> should be or be allowed to do.
>
> My hope was to avoid all that BS and make a clear cut case for separating
> the "Packs" from the rest of us. Single Op's dont compete with
multi-multi's
> do they?... The same thing applys here, it only makes sense... A "Pack"
who
> makes a pitiful THREE PERCENT of their Q's from stations "Other Than
> Themselves" should clearly be placed into their own category. Thats the
> point... Simple...
>
> As to your assumption quoted below... I truly had no idea the ARRL was up
to
> such endeavours. I do feel the committee will be flawed if some of us
> Traditional Rovers are not part of the process, which has been the case so
> far. Thinking on it... The League's history of poorly handling the Rover
> issue is one of record, why should I think this latest committee be any
> different?
>
> In the contest results, the League seems to embrace the concept of Pack
> Roving, even celebrating it... Fine.. But put them in their own category!
>
> ROVER is something to be cherished, and protected... not bashed and over
> regulated... I would have worked very few grids on 222 Mhz if it wern't
for
> the FB work of several "Traditional Rovers"...
>
> As a long time competitive 4 band Rover who typically travels 18+ grids, 3
> or 4 western states (States grow big out here guys!), and 1500+ miles, I
> think I know a few things about the subject. It is something near and dear
> to me and I cant keep quiet about it any longer...
>
> Look, I know Wayne - N6NB and can admire what he has done. Its not an easy
> nor inexspensive thing he and his crew have put together. I wish them all
> the luck in the world. But its clear to me that the techniques they employ
> should be in their own category.
>
> And for the record... Again... Grid Circling Is NOT And Has NEVER BEEN The
> Problem! It Was A Club Scoring Problem... But we all have hashed that out
> enough for many lifetimes...
>
> Enough said...
>
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09ol... sk
> ------------------------------------
>
> >Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Bob Witte K0NR <list@k0nr.com>
> >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VHF Contesting: Fixing the Grid Circling
> >
> >"This Pack-roving re-hash was in response to the announcement that the
ARRL
> >Board >approved the creation of a VHF/UHF Advisory Committee to deal with
> >VHF/UHF >contesting issues."
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|