Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Rule\s+Change\s+Debate\s+on\s+Skimmer\s*$/: 117 ]

Total 117 documents matching your query.

101. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:47:01 -0500
Rudy, There has been no argument in the past few months or perhaps years regarding the assisted class as it is defined. Memory keyers and computer logging have been around for decades and no one has
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00419.html (13,684 bytes)

102. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:04:07 -0500 (CDT)
Someone is going to have fun programming that! It DOES happen once in a while that a rare DX entity gets on in a contest and gets a pileup. Suddenly they are working people "5 up". The robot program
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00420.html (8,747 bytes)

103. [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:19:58 -0400
A couple of points I'd like to add and then I'm going to QSY and enjoy the great weekend we're going to have. I certainly appreciate your prospective Don and I don't think most of us would disagree w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00422.html (11,137 bytes)

104. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:33:05 -0700
That is the sad part of it Dave. 73 Tom W7WHY _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00424.html (8,709 bytes)

105. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: don.field@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:26:34 +0200
Yes Ken, but sending CW by hand is just as much an "amateur" skill as receiving CW and we let that one go years ago. This is what is driving me mad - the debate is so inconsistent. Paul EI5DI keeps s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00429.html (10,599 bytes)

106. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:35:28 -0500
Elite? Are you serious, Joe? I'm an old grey haired (what few hairs remain) dude with two overworked hearing aids just struggling to stay in the game! Favored location? I live in a noisy suburban lo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00430.html (9,860 bytes)

107. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:24:14 +0000
W4TV further tells us: Again, unlike all the examples W4TV gives, skimming completely replaces the operator in the process of finding & identifying stations to work - vetting the product of skimming
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00431.html (10,799 bytes)

108. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:06:16 +0100
I'll try to resolve this inconsistency. I have claimed that decoding by ear is the one thing which sets CW apart from all "other" data modes. If you don't agree, then what else is necessary to comple
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00436.html (9,522 bytes)

109. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: w5ov@w5ov.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
I somewhat agree with EI5DI here which is a somewhat rare thing! I do think a different perspective is needed when one analyzes what types of technology should constitute assistance or not. The crite
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00439.html (9,617 bytes)

110. [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Lee Volante <g0mtn1@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:20:04 +0100
It's been very interesting to watch the latest round of the 'Skimmer debate' over the last couple of weeks. It has made us realise we have some different opinions of what activities should be classed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00449.html (12,829 bytes)

111. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:31:07 +0000
when I run so2r on rtty I can decode 4 streams at once, 2 vfo's on both radios... I have been known to run 5 radios at once on rtty, so that would be 10 streams if each were decoding both vfo's... w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00450.html (10,037 bytes)

112. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Stan Stockton <k5go@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:31:09 -0400
Rudy, These are my opinions - most have them and mine is very strong. In that previous e-mail I stated that no one was wanting to ban Skimmer. I am sorry I made that statement because, after reading
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00464.html (11,036 bytes)

113. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:35:43 -0400
I've come around to the view that there should be a single-op category in which the use of CW Skimmer and similar wide-band, multi-stream CW decoders is not permitted. That way both the crowd that lo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00487.html (9,180 bytes)

114. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:03:56 -0500
Pete, There is no practical way to determine whether a single operator has two other operators in the room, spotting stations for him to work or working them for him on a second or third radio. Ther
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00494.html (11,919 bytes)

115. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:37:48 -0400
Stan, what I meant - however badly I said it - is that so long as the technology is fun, and people want to use it,why not let them, particularly given that you can't police a total ban? Banning Skim
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00495.html (9,464 bytes)

116. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:21:35 +0000
Skimmers will end up feeding the regular packet network anyway. That will give a MUCH larger audience to the spots than they will get by being skimmed by individuals running their own skimmers. It ju
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00499.html (10,718 bytes)

117. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:15:05 -0700
I just had, pardon the expression, an EPIPHANY. Let those who love skimmers and so want to (1) market and sell them, or (2) advance the technology, because they think they're really contributing to t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00506.html (11,201 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu