> The "unfair" advantages are: 1) the ability to build antennas that
> that would not be available in normal residential areas, 2) the
> ability to operate from geographically advantaged locations (e.g.,
> rare zone, country, section) without being a resident or travel,
> 3) the ability (although not legally) to use multiple receive
> locations.
Why is the ability to build bigger and better antennas when you can live at or
travel to the site a fair
advantage and the ability to build the same antennas when you can only travel
there virtually unfair?
I simply see no bone of contention with remote operation at all, provided:
1. The operator claims the point of origin of the RF as the location (so that a
W0 can't use a station in
Maine and pretend to still be a W0).
2. The point of origin of RF is the ONLY site for reception or transmission of
RF. (So that a station in
California remoting to a station in Maine can't use a local receiver to help
him hear Asia.)
The only possible explanations I can see for those complaining about remote
stations is envy or turf
protection or both. Contesting isn't, and shouldn't be, just about those with
the means or life
circumstances that permit rural acreages. It sounds kind of petty: "Well, if I
had to spend $400k and
give up my city job to move here to contest, than dammit, so does the other
guy."
73, kelly
ve4xt
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|