K5GO wrote: It would be interesting to see if the original author of the rules honestly thought a single operator should be able to work from a list of stations he had nothing to do with finding as l
Ted, I choose A. And anyone who thinks otherwise should try this task... Write your own contest rules today (2008) that will still be valid in 2058. Or here, an easier one... define the Universe. :-)
... seems some still don't like parts of the Constitution either. and the debate played on ;o) 73, Julius n2wn == message truncated == Julius Fazekas N2WN Tennessee Contest Group TnQP http://www.tnqp
It is neither A nor B. The point of these rules is simply that a single operator should do everything himself. Why is this such a difficult mystery to unravel? Such a rule could have been written dur
Although the current rule is pretty clear to me for CQ WW, here is a start. This will hold up somewhere between 10 minutes and 50 years depending on whether it is clear or not. Those stations at whic
To: Sponsors It would be so much easer to follow the "I know it when I see it" rule of life. Unfortunately that does not appear to be workable. If a definition of "Single Operator Unassisted" is requ
It isn't a mystery. What it is is trying to force a rule to be about something that it wasn't addressing. Because much of what amateur operators take for granted today would seem like a miracle to a
What happens when Skimmer is integrated into a bandscope and not called skimmer and those "spots" are fed to the computer via the radio directly......I guess any type of code reading should be addres
You got something against deaf operators? David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://www.k1ttt.net AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net ___________________________
snip... snip... To which should be added: 1.1 Sending of Morse code shall be done completely by hand using a hand-key, or at most a "bug". The use of a memory keyer or computer generated cw puts the
only thing that matters. We are not making money in contesting and it has to be maximum fun for majority. If the packet-like effect of Skimmer and most of the contesters' opposition to it will be cle
Way to go, Mike. If you don't agree with a faction, refer to them in disparaging terms and tell them to go away. That'll solve the issue! Just so you know, we "old guard cronies" (kind of a catchy na
If the remote spotting of their pile-ups was perceived to provide a real competitive advantage, why haven't the bigger M/M stations made cooperative arrangements to create private spotting networks w
If we do not presume competence on the part of the writer as to how the rules were constructed and do not rely upon standard usage when reading the rules, then the rules have no objective meaning. Al
Mike, K1MK wrote:> If we do not presume competence on the part of the writer as to how This is EXACTLY why I can't fathom how anyone could argue that the WW rule "DX Alerting assistance of any kind..
OK, while we're nit-picking rules, here's another nit for you. Parts of this have been recently posted in the Skimmer discussion but no one seems to have caught it (or care, I suspect). -- III A. Sin
Hmm. Actually this is one of the reasons K1TTT et al do all that spot analysis after every contest. It *is* understood to be advantageous, it is accepted by most to be in bad form, it can be detected
Hi Paul, Your assumption of my (and perhaps others') interests in deeming Skimmer assistance is just a touch off the mark. I am not worried about something that makes what we do more efficient. Effic
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:26:24 -0500
Yet, here we are. There are many who want to deem this, and other, new technology "assistance" because it helps an operator make contacts more efficiently. This can be said of much of the already ac
Without any help from me?? Are we talking about skimmer running at my shack and not coming in from the internet? If so then I had everything to do with it. I provided the radio and antennas, the comp