> No antenna system can do what a second radio can do: Allow you to
> listen while transmitting, and do it on any band you like.
No number of radios can do what big antennas can do: allow you to
hear a whole new level of signals, signals that would be unavailable
in any other form.
> And Joe, please stop with your nonsense about my "jihad" against
> two-radio operation. I am all in favor of two-radio operation and I
> always have been.
By calling for a distinction based only on the number of radios
that an operator MAY use during a contest, you are engaging in a
jihad against SOnR where n > 1. The distinction is not the number
of radios available to the operator, it is that all operating
activities are conducted by a single operator without assistance.
When you convince all contest sponsors to create a separate entry
category for those who use low, non-gain antennas whether by choice,
zoning restrictions, HOA regulation or simply lack of space, you
will have the moral standing to argue for separate entry categories
for other hardware limitations. As it is, except for the historical
accident of power based categories (which I believe should be
eliminated), there are no hardware classifications. If you want to
change the paradigm, make that change based on the most important
factor, and the one most subject to "checkbook competition" first.
The ability to effectively utilize any tool (a second receiver, a
second transceiver, a keyer, a computer, one's own ears, etc.) is
a skill developed with practice. To segregate operators based on
the skill set they have developed is not in keeping with the
tradition of radiosport.
> I am all in favor of two-radio operation and I always have been.
> I have never once said anything bad about it, never called for
> outlawing it or discouraged it in any way.
You cannot have it both ways. It is not possible to support two-
radio operation and simultaneously call for SO2R operators to be
put in a separate class but that is exactly what you are doing when
you call for a separate entry category for those who "only use one
radio." You end up with separate categories whether you create
a "new category" for those who only use a single radio or banish
those who use two or more radios to a separate category.
It is time for you to stop trying to have it both ways. If you are
in favor of hardware based classifications, step up to the plate
and convince contest sponsors to create reasonable classifications
starting with antennas. If you are not willing to do that, stop
being a hypocrite with your simple minded focus on SO2R.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:17 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R-SO1R from The Yukon??
>
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:22:32 -0500, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
>
> > However, the second radio is
> >no less important that the ANTENNA SYSTEM and even less important
> >that the skill with which the operator uses both.
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> No antenna system can do what a second radio can do: Allow you to
> listen while transmitting, and do it on any band you like. While you
> are calling CQ on one band, you can search for mults on another band
> and then quickly switch to that band, work them and then switch back
> (if you like) without missing a beat. This is a powerful advantage and
> I do not demean it in any way. I only suggest that people who prefer
> to use a single, traditional radio be grouped and scored separately,
> just as people who use an amplifier are grouped and scored separately.
> And Joe, please stop with your nonsense about my "jihad" against
> two-radio operation. I am all in favor of two-radio operation and I
> always have been. I have never once said anything bad about it, never
> called for outlawing it or discouraged it in any way. I do not know
> how to make this any clearer. Please get that idea out of your head
> once and for all. THANK YOU!!!
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|