----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Regardless of what you say, it is *not true* that there is
*general agreement*.
If you say so! I will try to be more specific in an
attempt to reach agreement on this point. I expect
you will concede that "There is general agreement,
within contest organisers in contests that distinguish
between SO-Assisted and SU-Unassisted, that the use of
skimmer puts us in the Unlimited (Assisted) category."
I support this distinction because I prefer to operate
SO-Unassisted, and do not submit entries to contests
without separate entry classes for SO-Assisted and
Unassisted.
> However, the current Luddite-inspired rules *do not* mean
> that there is *general agreement* that the position of those
> two sponsoring organizations are right any more than their
> acceptance of SO2R means their position on that technology
> is right in the eyes of many amateurs.
I really don't understand what point(s) you're making.
> Quite simply, attempting to pick and choose among
> technologies to decide which technology belongs in
> which class is *wrong*.
This statement is at variance with your previous post
where you referred to "determining which technologies
are appropriate". It is necessary to do so because not
all technologies are appropriate to all entry classes.
To argue otherwise is to propose a single entry class
(presumably Unlimited) for SO - to the exclusion of all
others.
> Get back to the criteria "does it involve another person
> in making or facilitating QSOs" and "is the equipment and
> antennas used located within the prescribed boundaries of
> the station."
Without in any way trying to demean your point of view,
may I say that I used to think exactly the same way.
Please have a look at "external assistance" in
http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00783.html
It was skimmer that made me change my mind. Why? Because
it is either inappropriate or disproportionate in the
context of SO-Unassisted CW entries, and contest organisers
accept this.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|