Among the many posts about interleaved CQs and about spotting and RBN
packet, this quote represents several:
"We can criticize the RBN and packet but used properly by skilled operators
it is a valuable tool."
Well, yes. But valuable for what? Only for this new form of contesting
that we Tune-For-QSO op's think is getting too far away from what (HF)
RADIO contesting is supposed to be about.
Does it take (different) skills to use them effectively? You betcha. So
what?
(Which is easier to play: the piano or the violin? Answer: No. It might
be easier to get out your first notes with the piano, but achieving
excellence is equally difficult. By definition.)
It would also take some new skills to use a system in which:
-- You hear a signal, that's a little too weak to copy...
but you get part of the call
-- Your SCP database figures out possible matches
-- Your real-time propagation analyzing software
figures out which of the matches
might actually be coming through,
-- and makes a temporary network connection
with those guys, asking, "Are you calling me?"
-- Your software accepts only negative replies,
so you are not being told who IS calling,
only who is NOT calling.
-- The not-callers are deleted from the SCP matches.
-- You need fewer repeats to log the QSO
I dearly hope none of you think THAT counts as making QSOs by radio. So,
now ... how close shall we allow?
73, Art K3KU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|