I want to thank Todd for his support of rovers. I have had several good
replies from people both vocal and not on this subject on the list. Nice
to hear from some of the silent majority!
The chief question was that I am not captive and why would I think I
was? What is the difference in being captive to ONE mother ship or Two?
What is a minimum non-mother ship QSO's that makes me non-captive?
I guess I was not clear enough that most rovers that can not win have
some sort of reason for going roving. Much like HF'ers try to get paper
of qsl cards, neither of which is popular on VHF and above, some rovers
delight ourselves by coming up with reasons to rover that specifically
are "not to win" but rather to have our own sort of fun. In my case even
though I take some random QSO's in my free time I do not deliberately go
looking or even call CQ for contacts unless I have nothing else to do (A
sched fell through). Almost all of my contacts are contacts that are
scheduled. IN effect I only really communicate with those I have chosen
to work in advance. This is what some claim to want to stop. In the
microwaves, unlike HF, people can not call CQ and expect a contact. It
just does not happen that way. Even with VHF I can not get a hold of
K8GP on my closest grid to him (290miles) on 2m without somehow getting
his beams to point north! This is a hardship not really found on HF
(other than skip issues).
So I have only two or three mother ships rather than one, I am still not
calling CQ or searching for contacts.
I just PRAY that the kindness of the people in the ARRL does not try to
put rules in place to stop captive rovers and accidentally wind up
stopping myself or some of the many other non-winning fun loving rovers.
Thanks everyone! May the GAS god's of Roving keep the price of gas under
the predicted $3.50 a gallon predicted for September. Maybe this is a
bigger threat to Roving than the captive rover issue!
Tim KE3HT/R
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:17:47 -0500
> From: "Todd Sprinkmann" <sprinkies@excel.net>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Kudos and support for KE3HT and rovers
> To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <03c001c5a407$ff3755b0$0400a8c0@todd260gzv3c5d>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I want to thank KE3HT for making his website and logs available. I
> could look at stuff like that all day long.
>
> I also want to reassure Tim that I see no way he could be
categorized
> as a captive rover. I'm not running for the position of judge and
jury,
> but
> I was mystified as to why he feels like he could be a captive rover.
And
> looking at just his June 2005 was very instructive. There's Q's with
over
> 2 dozen different calls. Sure plenty of those Q's are with well-known
> mutli-ops and big guns, but so what? Those types of stations are
going
> to be well represented in anyone's logs. No conspiracy there, LOL.
>
> Tim even said, "My June logs will show that I mainly worked three
> stations *plus anyone else that could hear me.* (Emphasis between
> the asterisks is mine). Hey, I don't know about anyone else here, but
> as far as I'm concerned, a rover (or fixed station) that works anyone
else
> that can be heard is clearly competing in a sportsmanlike manner.
>
> I also salute Tim for competing even though he states "he cannot win
> the rover category." He realizes what's fun for him and then he goes
out
> and does it with considerable style and capability, from what I read
on
> his website. I don't think anyone here is saying that a rover or
fixed
> station must absolutely follow a rigid protocol designed to work the
> absolute maximum of stations at all times. If KE3HT wants to try and
go
> for the gold with DX on the microwaves, good on him. The only thing
> that would be objectionable would be deliberately not working stations
> because they weren't part of a hypothetical mothership.
>
> I am clearly on Tim's side, and I am clearly on the side of all
rovers
> and
> fixed stations that get out and contest and increase activity. Tim's
logs
> show to me that he is far from a captive rover. I'm not really sure
where
> Tim got the idea that he was called out. I wish he (and the others
who
> feel
> threatened) could point out some specific text that they felt labeled
or
> criticized by. Tim did not say anything about me specifically, but
since
> I
> have stated very clearly my opinions before about captive roving, I
wanted
> very much to respond to his post and salute his efforts.
>
> Tim, if you can show me who wants you to quit roving, please do so.
I
> wish you roved within range of EN63ao, LOL! Maybe something crazy
> will happen in a contest someday and we'll work each other on one or
> more of your bands. I often have success raising W3SO, at least. :)
>
> I just don't see "all this anti rover hatred". I doubt *anyone*
wants
> to "kill
> off rovers like you". Again, I appreciate the chance to go through
your
> excellent website and learn from it. My only quarrel is with the
> practices
> of captive roving as defined by W5OV -- Bob's excellent post today.
Bob
> got right back to the point, as I see it. It seems like a lot of
detours
> are
> being taken and that's where this topic gets stuck in a not-so-good
place.
>
> 73,
> Todd KC9BQA EN63ao
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|