RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R

To: "Army Curtis - AE5P" <ae5p@suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:37:13 -0700
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:47 -0500, "Army Curtis - AE5P"
<ae5p@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>That crack was completely uncalled for, and totally unwarranted. Joe, while
>being the Microham distributor, is also one of the major contributors to the
>state of the art in Ham radio today. Joe has always been quick to write very
>well thought out responses to questions posed on forums such as this, and
>has always proved to be very helpful. To try and ascribe a strictly
>financial motive to his very well done messages on SO2R is totally off base.
>And to say that he is an opponent is SO1R is just simply wrong. At no time
>have I ever seen or heard Joe say or write that he is opposed to SO1R. 
>
>You are the one who seems so adamantly opposed to SO2R, for reasons that
>totally escape me. Is it that you are really opposed to SO2R, or do you just
>like to see your name on the reflector? You post so often, one has to wonder
>as to what your motives really are.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

My post was not a "crack", it was a statement of fact. Look it up and
decide for yourself.

Normally on this and other reflectors, when a person has a financial
interest in the subject under discussion, the poster will add a
disclaimer. Have you ever seen a disclaimer from Joe? I never have.

Joe, by his own admission, has not done any RTTY contesting in the
last two years, yet he is very active in promoting microHAM SO2R
products on this and other reflectors. To me, if he is just selling
SO2R stuff and not even contesting, his interest is purely financial.
Am I wrong?

The rest of your post tells me you have not read any of my previous
posts, even though you are commenting on what I (supposedly) said.

Here it is once again: I am NOT, repeat NOT, opposed to SO2R. Got it?
SO2R is fine with me. Clear to you now? That has ALWAYS been my
position from day one. What I do want is a separate class for SO1R and
SO2R because of the hardware advantage, much like the advantage HP has
over LP and QRP. 

I should point out that I nearly always operate HP. If I were like
Joe, I would be pressing for elimination of separate classes for LP
and QRP, but I am not because it would not be fair. 

I do not know how to make my position any more clear. I have no
disclaimers to add except that I am in favor of attracting new people
to contesting and that is my motive for my position. Except for
payment from the ARRl for an article in QST about macros, I have never
made a penny off of ham radio in any way.

Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>