I want to line up on Randy, K5ZD's team, for this debate.
His last sentence summarizes his thoughts [and mine] perfectly"
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
I also endorse his P.S. and would add to it -- " in fact, it doesn't even
occur to them to cheat"
Since we have already solved the packet use matter [unlimited or assisted
category] I had thought the skimmer solution was obvious and was a bit
puzzled why it continues to be discussed. But then, discussing whether one
should send nnRST or just nn as an exchange went on for many days.
Tod, K0TO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:21 AM
> To: 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>
> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument,
> then all the same issues would be true. If we are going to
> make categories based on cheating potential, then the only
> option appears to be combining all the single op categories
> into one. Anything goes.
>
> That would be sad for those of us who really enjoy the
> "classic" definition of single operator.
>
> I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted.
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> PS - For people who are honorable, the temptation to cheat is
> easily overcome.
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|