By this logic ** EVERY ** RTTY operator is "assisted" since testing.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest Unfortunately, there is no logic to that idea: RTTY has never been considered a format that humans
Question: What does Cluster do? It shows you who's where, with callsigns, assuming the poster copied correctly. Does CW Skimmer show you who is on the band, with callsigns? Yes. That it's a robot in
Well, I'd say that the proper way to effect changes to the rules are: 1. Write a letter to the sponsor. Didn't work? then take it to the next level: 2. Build inertia in the wider community, also know
IMHO, Ranko is absolutely wrong. He's taking the law into his own hands and becoming a contesting vigilante. Integrity in contesting means you give your word that you followed the rules of the contes
So Jim, What you're saying is that because there's no advantage to be gained, those champions of Worthless Causes arguing for dropping 59 should just shut up and follow the rules. Excellent point. Yo
Here's a novel solution to Skimmer misspots: copy them yourself! I am not opposed to Skimmer nor am I opposed to packet. I still don't think a Skimmer-assisted op is any less assisted than a packet-a
Hey Tor, All excellent points, indeed. None changes my mind that Skimmer should be assisted, however. I see no reason why calling Skimmer 'assistance' in any way negates the advantages you so correct
Yes, let single operators use any technology they wish. Agreed entirely. If they use something that looks like packet and smells like packet, call them assisted. Skimmer looks like a goose, walks lik
Hi Tor, Sorry to disagree, but I think you're wrong. If you park a second receiver on another band and listen to it, YOU are doing the listening. Anytime YOU are doing something, it's not assistance.
C'mon Joe, it's completely ludicrous to say Skimmer breaks no new ground. Since when has there been anything, other than packet, that tells you who is on and where they are. All the other examples yo
Hi Joe, So if Garry Kasparov is playing a chess match and has a feed from Deep Blue in his ear, offering analyses of various moves and suggestions of his next move, his opponent should just accept th
I don't necessarily think that an hour is too restrictive for the serious players, but I do wonder what evidence we have that cheating is so rampant, so widespread that draconian guilty-until-proven-
Pete's hit the nail on the head on three counts: it is certainly possible some are overestimating the impact of skimmer. It is also true that new technology should not be banned. And it is also true
Why does every suggestion that there remain a skimmerless category, just like there remains a packetless category, result in someone arguing a point that is not made? I only said a skimmerless catego
Ummm, Randy said twice that to remain SO unassisted, the skimmer had to be entirely confined to your station. Did you perhaps miss that part, Stan? In other words, you could not be receiving Skimmer
Not sure why who sends what is relevant. The question, I don't think, should be who sent the log but rather "Did a QSO take place?" If it did, as verified by the log checking process, it should be en
Spot on, Paul. 73, Kelly Ve4xt Respectfully? I think not. You seem to have missed the point. Of course, all the things you mention cost money. But, having access to SO2R hardware does not make anyone
Please quote a reference to back up your assertions on the "intention" of the "of any kind." We can't read unspoken intention. We can read words, and the words say "of any kind." 73, kelly ve4xt ____
Having done my share of paper logging in my past, and winning the Can-Am contest and WPX (for Canada), I can most assuredly say that computer logging has NOT been a huge boost to score. I guess I ado
Don't know about W4KFC's robot, however: CT, NA, Writelog, TR, N1MM, etc. do not do the receiving for you. You still have to turn that large dial, find stations, decode their callsigns and work them