Paul publicly asked for a response from me to that link. I responded
privately, but since you bring it up again below is the full text of
what I replied to him:
And with that, I'm going to abide by my last comment below and won't be
contributing to this argument any further.
Dave AB7E
*************************************************
Paul,
I read the statements in your link, and ... in my opinion ... it all
boils down to the question of whether a valid contact is made between
two operators or between two radios. A remote operation puts a non-RF
link between the two operators, but not between the two radios.
If your definition of a valid contact is a function of making the best
use of propagation, power, antennas, noise level, timing, performance of
the radio, ability to copy under difficult conditions, etc (all of which
are part of traditional ham radio) to exchange callsigns and reports,
than it doesn't really require that either operator actually be seated
at the radio ... especially since both radios are under the direct
control of their respective operators. In the one case, the operator
controls the radio with his hands. In the other, the operator controls
the radio with his hands via an extra link, but *the RF still goes
through the same path* and is subject to the same conditions in both cases.
I, and MANY other hams, use computer control of my transceiver during
contests for logging, changing frequency, and typically even for sending
CW. I don't use prefills (the laughably called Call History Files that
are comprised of somebody else's history) and I don't use spotting
networks ... but that's just my personal preference. My transceiver is
still connected to me *via a digital link over a cable*, albeit a short
one. In my opinion, that's fundamentally not much different than a much
longer one. Some people use WiFi to control their rig from another room
in the house separate from where the radio is located.
Contrary to what you are claiming, I've tried to use comparisons like
this with you in the past. You've rejected this out of hand, and I'm
confident you will do this now as well.
It's not a matter of fact ... it's just a matter of opinion what
constitutes a valid connection. You have yours, and many others have a
different one. As I said publicly, you don't express an opinion ...
you (loudly) proclaim your view as fact. The folks that offer various
rewards and run contests have clearly said that it's the RF link alone
that determines a contact. I don't think you really have the right to
dispute that, and if you want you could always create your own program
as a counter offering.
But you won't. You'll just keeping telling everyone how wrong they are.
I really don't want to keep debating you on this. It's like arguing
religion or abortion, and it's fruitless for both of us.
Regards,
Dave AB7E
************************************************
On 1/10/2026 2:05 PM, kq2m@kq2m.com wrote:
Your synopsis at https://ei5di.com/remote.html is beautifully and
accurately expressed Paul!
73
Bob, KQ2M
(who has operated remote and likes it as an operating/technology
option, but will never agree that it belongs
in the same operating category as a 100% onsite NON-remote qso.)
On 2026-01-10 07:57, Paul O'Kane wrote:
On 09/01/2026 22:13, Dave AB7E wrote:
I agree with most of that, but the problem with Paul is that he
never just expresses an opinion ... he ALWAYS puts forth everything
on this subject as an absolute statement of hard fact, and he does
it at every opportunity. It's pretty over the top.
But the problem with Dave is that he is wilfully blind to hard facts,
and he ignores opinions that don't correspond to his own. He would
rather disparage me than address the issues, and he does this at
every opportunity. It's pretty discouraging, but I'll keep trying.
For over ten years, Dave has yet to respond to any of the issues here
- https://ei5di.com/remote.html
He ALWAYS refuses to debate them. All he does is "disagree", but
will not say why. All in all, he's pretty disagreeable.
Of course, that's just my opinion :-)
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|