Although the nature of contesting has been one of technological advances over the years that have increased scoring opportunities, it's evident from the postings on this list that the contesting comm
Good. Now swap the NAQP CW and SSB weekends so we don't have to put up with the RTTY Roundup (or whatever it is) QRM and all will be well. There is still time to do so. Thanks. Jim Cain At the (tempo
Thank you, thank you, thank you! 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Just a boy and his radio" -- _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.con
All; I want to thank everyone for the feedback provided on this NAQP CW issue - especially some very thoughtful responses that were sent directly to Bruce and I off the list. Although a number of res
Al and Bruce, Both of your messages position this as a matter of timing, with language like "the contesting community is not ready" and "did not feel this was the time". I seriously do not think the
No more NAQP stuff ... MERRY Christmas to all de HK3CW Rob.. (no skimmer for me... yuuuckkk!) -- Original Message -- From: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com> To: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn@hornucopia.com>; "c
Gee, Bruce.. Thanks, but don't try this again without input from the community. Hi-tech is great, but this contest is a classic example of OPERATOR SKILL. Create a ASSISTED class if you want.. 73, HN
Wow, thanks to Al and Bruce for reversing this rule. I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to get the word out as well as we can to minimize the number of folks who use Skimmer because they didn'
That is what I was wondering now. What a mess. What happens to the few, and you know there most likely will be some, that enter in that class that is no more, as a single op, and skimmer or whatever
Joe: Rots O Ruck: I proposed a SO Assisted for the 160 M and 10 M ARRL contests, and got zero response from the contest branch. Do you expect anything different from the folks who run the NAQP? My vo
Wow ... you just significantly added to the mess. CW Skimmer per se is NOT disallowed by the newly revised rules. An unassisted operator can still use CW Skimmer in narrow band audio mode as a single
Dave, The issue is not how the rules are written; it is having a common understanding of what an unassisted single operator is. I think that most of us do share that understanding and to quote our fr
Hmm... seems that I'm being chastised for having publicly stated that the rule change may not be noticed by lots of folks (particularly those who go by the rules as published in the NCJ) and then att
Jim, I think what you did was admirable, and appropriate. I would rather have someone think they can't use skimmer at all than to think they might be able to use any function is might be capable of.
I don't have a problem with other people using code readers. I myself can still copy close to 55 wpm and have pretty good CW ears in the QRM/QRN. I don't use any assistance in copying CW. But I can't
W5OV: Ear, not eye. Scott W4PA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
inadequate and not politically correct... you need a better definition that accounts for those who are either physically or mentally unable to copy by ear, or by eye, or by typing what they can see o
Is this really a big issue? How many CW contest entrants fit this description? I suspect that it is a small minority if there are any at all. I think that for discussion purposes, the likely very sma
Maybe we need to make clear what exactly a "Single Operator" is, since there's clearly much disagreement on the details. A humble proposal, if I may: -- Proposed General Definition: Single Operator (