> 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."
No, there are several contest sponsors who do not take a
punitive view of Skimmer and have no restriction against
its use by any single operator.
> 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.
You took "determining which technologies are appropriate"
out of context. I am completely opposed to excluding any
technology from single operator contests. Again, if you
want to limit technology, limit all technology and make
the "limited" or "unassisted" class one that is open to
any operator ... limit the class to a single 100 W rig
(with only one receiver) and basic antennas.
Once you start to allow technology - whether is is two
receivers (SO2R) or 100 receivers (skimmer), a tribander
or stacked monobanders, the differentiation becomes one
of firepower not necessarily the skill of the marksman.
> 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,
That's your opinion. There are others that believe SO2R,
computer logging, bandmaps, panadapters and other hardware
are either inappropriate or disproportionate. Ask any
contester reduced to living in an apartment block or a
deed restricted community if SO2R and multiple monoband
stacks are "appropriate" or "proportionate" for a single
operator. I doubt that the response will be a surprise.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 9/17/2010 4:07 PM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|