Paul,
We are veering off topic here.
I get a lot of jollies out of knowing many contesters personally, and QSOing
them in contests... in fact, It would be devoid of fun without the
personalities and people. Heck, I wish I would have met you when I operated
SS from St. John's a few years back... (though Dunville is a bit of a haul).
I had a ball meeting many of the callsigns I'd worked over the years.
My overall point, Paul, is that you have to accept the technology changes
along with everything else... and you're flatly stating that you do not want
this to happen, as it goes with remote station operation.
So -- Let's agree. Ham radio without people would be a very boring hobby.
However, whom (or what, or how) I work in an individual contest QSO is not
going to make or break this great hobby.
'Nuff said on this subject -- I'll by the beers and we can discuss at length
if your gonna be at Dayton!
73,
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
http://www.getscores.org!
On 3/21/07, Paul J. Piercey <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Finally!
>
> Yes, Gerry, it is an emotional argument; not technical.
>
> Yes, the new technology is wonderous and can do so many things these days
> but I feel that it is not at the core of amateur radio's being that the
> technology be the main component. It is the human interaction. How would you
> have met all the people you have met over the years if all these contest
> stations you worked were robots? In a few years you can send your PC to
> Dayton to have web-cam QSOs with all it's robot buddies.
>
> Yes, I enjoy contesting and frankly, when in battle, I am primarily
> concerned with the mults and the points and getting new counters for such
> awards as DXCC, USCH and IOTA. But not if there is no one at the station I
> have worked. I want to know I worked a real, live person in each of these
> entities. In CW, even if the computer is sending the exchange, you're right;
> the operator had to have entered my call and hit the right key to provide me
> my response. That's good enough for me, as long as he's at or relatively
> close to the radio. I don't want a 100% guarantee that he's at the radio
> site, just in the same multiplier area. I think this is a reasonable wish.
>
> I've stated my case as best I can so I won't be addressing each and every
> response I get in the future but yours did strike me the hardest as being
> the most devoid of emotion. To regard the operator as non-essential, to me,
> contradicts everything that amateur radio is.
>
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Gerry Hull [mailto:gerry.hull@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* March 21, 2007 14:42
> *To:* vo1he@rac.ca
> *Cc:* sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
>
> Paul,
>
> This is a purely emotional argument, and I can agree with your sentiment.
> No one is trying to make you change
> your beliefs. However, think of the forum you are discussing this
> argument in. This is a reflector about
> ham radio contesting. There is often debate here on contesting rules and
> policy. Current rules have been clearly stated, and I don't see much
> sentiment for reversing them.
>
> In the context of contesting, it seems that the majority of respondents
> believe that remoting is an OK activity, even a good thing. They believe it
> will stimulate activity (always good for contesting). It helps people with
> antenna restrictions. For those who can set up a remote QTH in another
> country, it will allow them to experience operation from a far-away
> location. It's certainly your right to not like it, but it is becoming
> more and more a fact of life.
>
> Oh yes -- I am the guy who said I do not care if it's man or machine I
> work in a contest. I said that in the context of participating in a
> contest. There have been specific examples of hams using computers to
> completely control a station during a contest. This was done as an
> experiment. (Ops do a much better job). My point was: as long as the
> other station sends the correct exchange and is following the rules, I am a
> happy camper. It's still ham radio -- still communicating on rf, still
> dealing with QRM & propagation, and still competition. In today's CW
> contests, you are speaking to a computer 99% of the time... Oh, an op
> pressed a function key to send an exchange, but the CW was generated by a
> computer. Does this make it any less an amateur radio QSO?
>
> Contesters are a group who continually push the envelope, and will
> continue to do so... If you want QSOs with a 100% guarantee that the
> operator will be physically at the radio transmitter, I think you are
> living in the past.
>
> 73,
>
> --
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
> http://www.getscores.org!
>
>
>
> On 3/21/07, Paul J. Piercey <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com ] On Behalf Of
> > > sawyered@earthlink.net
> > > Sent: March 20, 2007 21:57
> > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
> > >
> > > Personally, I think this is a great idea to mitigate the HOA
> > > problem and contester/DXer needs in ham radio. More power to
> > > everyone doing it and hopefully, in years to come, there will
> > > not be a delay problem to hamper world class operations with
> > > this method.
> > >
> > > To me, KC1J's explanation was the key. Control it from
> > > where-ever you want. Just do it legally (with both countries
> > > respected if its cross border), keep the "station" within the
> > > rules just as it would be if the operator was on site, and
> > > have lots of fun.
> > >
> > > Should people using wireless headphones and keyboards be
> > > outlawed from contesting because the peripherals are not
> > > wired? I don't think so. Remote operating is just more of this.
> > >
> > > What makes it different from echolink, skype, and cell phones
> > > is that there is still an RF transmition happening on
> > > recognized amateur frequencies, in both directions, from
> > > point to point of "site QTH" and the "site QTH" represents
> > > the callsigns used. If you can't see the difference between
> > > that and echolink, skype, and cell phones, it is seriously
> > > time to find another hobby.
> > >
> > > See you this weekend on WPX SSB as NV1N. Comfortably nestled
> > > into my 500m circle and operating direct but admiring those
> > > attempting it remote.
> > >
> > > Ed N1UR
> >
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > I believe I do see the difference which is why I am speaking out against
> > it.
> > So far, no one has given me a sufficient reason to cause me to change my
> >
> > thinking on the subject. Saying that progress is inevitable and we
> > should
> > all just bow down to it is not 'remotely' good enough.
> >
> > I am not looking at this as a purely technological issue but that seems
> > to
> > be the thinking out there so I have to argue those points while my main
> > point gets overwhelmed.
> >
> > I am not against remote operation because of the technology. Actually, I
> > am
> > not against remote operation in principle. I just don't like where it's
> > headed because it just isn't what I believed the true focus of amateur
> > radio
> > was. My view, and what I was led to believe when I first got interested
> > in
> > it, is that we use our skills to invent, improve and use methods that
> > will
> > enable us to talk directly to other people in other countries around the
> > world. I want to work "people in foreign lands". I want to know that
> > when I
> > work a VU7, he's in the Laccadives or when I work a YB1, he's in
> > Indonesia.
> > I sometimes want to work a N1 in Vermont and if you are in Vermont using
> > a
> > remote radio that is in Vermont, then I have accomplished my goal. I DO
> > NOT
> > want to work an N1 in Vermont who is operating a remote radio in, and
> > claiming to be a, KH7. I DO NOT want to work a VE7 who claims to be a
> > VK7
> > while sitting in beautiful, downtown Kamloops. To me, that's just not in
> > keeping with the spirit of the hobby.
> >
> > I had a reply from one amateur (I'm sure you must have seen it) who
> > indicated that humans were unnecessary to the operation of amateur radio
> > and
> > that he didn't care if he worked a human at all. If that's you're idea
> > of
> > amateur radio, then I suggest it is you who needs a new hobby.
> >
> > 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
http://www.getscores.org!
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|