In the ARRL Contest Update for May 27, N0AX ends his "Pushing the Envelope" section with the words "Welcome to the second century of radio!" where, presumably, it will be the norm for us to be active
I'm with Zack on this. If it doesn't seem right, you can bet it's not right. As for DXCC validity, let's take an example. EI0DX, just down the road, lets Zack control his receiver. That way, Zack "wo
... New techniques and technologies are always welcome. When they serve to replace RF, however, the notion of a "QSO" has to change. If all possible technology changes are accepted, contesting will c
Was the spotting network always connected via the internet? Unlikely! That's not the full story. Having others supply you with spots by telephone is prohibited, whereas having others supply you with
Really? I believe open logs are one of the most welcome changes in recent years. Thanks, but we don't need to ask. When you enter CQWW your logs are on the web for everyone to see. Looks like paranoi
<snip> <snip> This is depressing. How can this mailing list be relevant and interesting to new contesters in the face of such obstinate and relentless negativity? A "station inspection" means just th
That's precisely why spotting (of any kind) should not be permitted in contests. Self-spotting is merely the equivalent of calling CQ on non-amateur communications which facilitate contest QSOs. If w
The spotting network, a separate wired communications network, already facilitates QSOs in amateur radio contests. That's a foolish state of affairs because it undermines the nature of amateur radio.
Some contesters don't like being spotted, because the resultant pileup slows their rate. Others, like myself, think it's our birthday when we have two or more callers. For most of us, being spotted c
The people who don't like this implication are often the ones who need the "crutch", the spotting network, to help them get higher scores in contests. It's far from BS - it's a reasonable, valid com
Agreed - it's the self-spotting that has been criminalized :-) Not quite. There's no reason for SO to change from being a "one man and his dog" class and, at the same time, benefit from being spotted
I'm happy to step back as far as you want, and can do it from personal experience to the early 60s. Not only is the the use of non amateur-radio communications inappropriate in contesting, so also i
Sure it's a digital mode, but only when when you treat it that way. CW operators decode CW by ear, and that's what distinguishes them from digital operators. If you didn't copy it by ear, you can cal
This document amounts to three pages of unmitigated rubbish and circular arguments from an operator ("ARRL Member, DX'er, Contester, Contester-Peditioner, Remote Station Operator") who clearly doesn'
In the 3830 reports for 31st January, there is a report from a US contester, who operated, by internet remote control, in the REF and CQ160 contests. It appears that both these operations were illega
I'd vote for remote control - it puts the wires back into wireless. The contesters who have freely adopted DX Cluster are those who don't know, or don't care, about the difference between the interne
Packet Radio was just as inappropriate (as the internet) for contesting because it used other, non-contest, modes and/or frequencies to find or facilitate QSOs. In any activity we have to be careful
Not really - it's bread and butter to most newbies who are likely to be computer and internet literate. Also, it's using the internet the way we should all use it - as an accessory, and not as a repl
. . Magic! - just what we need to put the wires back into wireless. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.conte
This development is, in terms of amateur radio contesting, a weapon of mass destruction which, rather than being subject to stringent controls, has been put into the hands of anyone with an internet