[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R-SO1R from The Yukon??

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R-SO1R from The Yukon??
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:13:37 -0800
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:59 -0600, Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com>

>I'll also state that it is absurd IMHO, to argue that SO2R is a different 
>class from SO1R. It's one operator. 

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

Nonsense. You might as well argue that HP is no different from LP or
QRP. It's just one operator, right? How about assisted vs unassisted?
Just one operator, right? 

Face it guys, having a second radio is a great advantage, just like
having an amplifier is a great advantage. Some guys will use an amp,
some won't. Some guys will use packet/telnet, some won't. Some will
use two radios, some won't. All of those classes should be grouped and
scored separately. Let folks choose which they prefer. Fun for all.

Nobody, especially me, is knocking two-radio operation. If you like
it, by all means go for it. But let's just group the two-radio ops
with other two-radio ops and stop claiming "it's just a matter of
skill" because there is more involved than that. Or would you say that
using an amplifier is "just a matter of skill"?

I didn't think so.

73, Bill W6WRT
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>