Perhaps what is needed is a new Class rather than trying to resolve the
debate about Skimmer and the existing ones quickly.
Suppose we establish a new, Single Operator No Skimmer class. [SONS] Then
the debate about what is permitted in SO assisted [unlimited] can proceed to
its "Final Solution". <" Die Endlösung" if you speak/read German>
Tod, K0TO
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim George
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:25 AM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer for S/O in IARU
> >
> > The current headline from Radio-Sport.net indicated the
> Skimmer will
> > be allowed in the IARU by S/O competitors.
> > Assuming that is correct, that is a total game-changer. The WPX was
> > not a contest where packet was going to make a huge
> difference over a
> > good SO2R station and operator. But the IARU is different,
> with access
> > to more multipliers and even simple QSOs making a significant
> > difference compared with "normal" SO2R. Personally, I am very
> > disappointed in the ARRL for allowing this. It's clear to
> me that at
> > the very least, Skimmer would place the user in the Assisted class.
> > And coming at the time when this IARU is important for WRTC
> qualifying
> > points, it could be a difference maker.
> >
> > I will compete, and will not boycott it, although I
> disagree with the
> > League's position.
> >
> > Jim George N3BB
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|