RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs

To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat@copper.net>, <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:10:45 -0400
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
> But his score should be separated from those who use "conventional"
> transceiver operation: When the TX is on, the RX is off and vice
> versa.  To not separate the scores is akin to lumping all power
> classes together and is inherently unfair for the same reason.

You are constantly repeating this refrain - it is still as 
intellectually and ethically bankrupt as the first day you 
wrote it.  To separate operators into entry classes based on 
the efficiency of their operating technique is about as valid 
as a separate entry class for those who write with one hand 
and send CW with the other would have been in the days of 
paper logs.  

The goal is to get the maximum efficiency (maximum number of QSOs 
x multipliers) from a station in which one operator performs all 
functions.  Operating technique is not equivalent to power, 
spotting assistance, or a second operator - never has been and 
never will be.  

If you want to separate all those things that give an operator 
an advantage, make anyone with antennas more than 50' above 
ground and more than 1/2 wave of "element" enter a separate 
category.  Make anyone with a second antenna - and the ability 
to listen in two directions at the same time - enter a separate 
class.  Such distinctions are just as valid - after all antennas 
are "no skill" devices like amplifiers - as your insane fixation 
on banishing SO2R operators to the ghetto of a separate entry 
class.   



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:30 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
> 
> 
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:46:51 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
> 
> >There is not (and 
> >should not be) any rule that prohibits an operator from using a 
> >second receiver to check a "dead" band for openings or to tune 
> >another band for multipliers while CQing ... or if he has the 
> >skill working multipliers on a second band instead of reading 
> >magazines when the rate gets slow on Sunday afternoon.  
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> Agreed, nobody should be penalized for using a second radio to listen
> while transmitting, whether on the same band or a different band or
> all bands at once. Good for him.
> 
> But his score should be separated from those who use "conventional"
> transceiver operation: When the TX is on, the RX is off and vice
> versa.  To not separate the scores is akin to lumping all power
> classes together and is inherently unfair for the same reason.
> 
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
> 

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

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