Hi Steve,
I submit that's not the point of SO2R, it's merely the level of proficiency
most users have settled into. These folks have simply evolved past that level.
I was reacting to the suggestion, though admittedly not by you, there was
something illegal about the practice or that there needed to be a new category.
Contesting is unique in that it's one sport where people of all different
abilities compete. If you were a sprinter but can't get your time in the 100
down to the 10-seconds range, guaranteed you're not going to line up next to
Usain Bolt. If you're a driver who has trouble driving safely at 55, guaranteed
you're never lining up behind Jeff Gordon.
But in contesting, the bad drivers and slow sprinters are in the same field as
the Usain Bolts and Jeff Gordons. To some people, it seems that means we need
to tie an anchor to Usain or give Jeff Gordon a restrictor plate. I would
prefer we marvel at and celebrate the abilities of ZF2MJ et al.
I'm pretty sure I will never be at that level, but that's my fault. It's not up
to these folks or contest organizers to dumb anyone down to my level.
73, Kelly
ve4xt
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/06/2015 07:27 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Granted, however, if you have good antenna systems on both bands (and good
>> propagation on both) and you’re running dueling CQs, isn’t a potential
>> outcome of both CQs an answer to each, and the ability to answer each in
>> sequence? Wasn’t that the point of SO2R in the first place?
>
> No. The point of SO2R, for the vast majority of SO2R users, is to run on one
> radio, while S&P on another radio, with a lockout to prevent transmitting on
> both radios simultaneously.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|