Paul, you've flogged this topic to death so many times and still always
miss the point that the rest of us, as well as the various contest and
awards sponsors, don't really care about the link between the OPERATORS
... they only care about the link between the STATIONS. You may not
like that, but that's the reality of the situation. The funny thing is
that everyone, including you and including me, pretty much agrees that
"the path of relevance" is defined by what the RF is doing. If I am
physically located in Arizona but operate a legally licensed remote
station in Aruba that makes a contact with a station in Germany everyone
agrees that the only allowable claim is for a contact between Aruba and
Germany. Your insistence that the RF needs to extend to the operator is
purely arbitrary and without any foundation other than your own
emotional bias.
Dave AB7E
On 4/12/2012 9:42 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>
> What's different about remote control is that it uses the internet
> (typically) to replace RF in the signal path between the operators
> concerned. That's what makes the QSO fundamentally different from
> vanilla QSOs, using RF only. We're back to the difference between
> hybrid QSOs and amateur-radio QSOs - and that's why remote control
> entries should be classified separately.
> 73, Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|