Since one or two people disagreed with my remarks on this subject, I've taken the liberty of combining my responses. The difference between the internet, and most other things that are "part of amate
<snip> That was the argument used by Lehmann Brothers and others in the Banking and Finance world when they turned their backs on their core businesses - and started a revolution with new highly-soph
Yes, and it is the enthusiasts (the amateurs) who still go to sea in boats without engines - they depend solely on natural elements (wind, waves and currents) and their own sailing skills to get wher
I have already suggested an answer to this question, although I've used the word "inappropriate" rather than "unsuitable". It is when the effect of the technology would be disproportionate or when it
I don't know Russian, so I can't have a conversation in Russian. The only way I can communicate with a Russian speaker is to use a decoder - human or otherwise. Although I may have had two-way commun
No one said that. VR2BG said "The competition is based on operating: finding, working & logging stations. None of that is possible if the operator doesn't know the code". Yes, QSOs of some sort may t
I can't claim the credit for that phrase (CW is just another data mode). Here's the original reference. http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-March/079129.html I know that CW is not j
I have a different point of view :-) The hobby is amateur radio now, just as it was 40 years ago. It is not amateur internet. In 40 years from now it will still be amateur radio - unless, of course,
Here we are faced with yet another unprofessional, biased questionnaire. I support the ARRL's recent IARU contest decisions. 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
While it may not be "nasty", it's evident that something there is blatantly unfair. I estimate, and it's probably a conservative estimate, that one spot is worth at least 10 additional QSOs. One WRTC
Correction : one WRTC station had 121 spots 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listin
<snip> Not true - I heard several calling CQ and not getting callers. Yes, and very time a station is spotted it gets more callers. That's not cheerleading in the conventional sense Carol described,
No impact - where the number of spots for each team varied from 1 to 121? Of course there was an impact. Look at the results. A single additional spot for ES5TV/ES2RR could have made them winners. On
<snip> Yes, that is what it is supposed to do. <snip> I've read it - twice. It's a good story but it is not relevant. WRTC does not aim to level operator skills, it aims to level the playing field so
It may be what many contesters use, but it is not a part of amateur radio contesting, any more than cell phones or digital cameras are a part of contesting. It is the internet, a separate wired profe
<snip> That is nonsense. There is no tradition of WRTC teams using spots. It does not happen, and I can say with confidence that it will not happen. 73, Paul EI5DI ___________________________________
<snip> My hobby is amateur radio contesting. Your's is something else - I suggest internet contesting. Just as there is a difference between the internet and amateur radio, there is a difference betw
This statement from Tõnno ES5TV raises a few questions - Why, in spite of the "huge contribution" due to spotting, is it still not permitted for WRTC operators? Do you accept that if you (ES5TV/ES2RR
It's a waste of time. When I hear my callsign, it usually means the important bit is next - and in CQWW there's nothing to listen for. How does anyone cope with SS and Field Day? 73, Paul EI5DI _____
<snip> That's an inappropriate analogy for "unassisted" and "assisted" Our ocean is communications and we are the sailboaters of this ocean - using othing other than the natural elements of amateur-b