Marty,
Like you I'm tired of the semi-annual attack on SO2R operators and
those who use every alleged instance of cheating as a pretense to
attack SO2R.
> A single op operating one station cannot compete with another
> single op who possess the skill and hardware to operate two
> stations almost simo.
And the answer to that is "so what?" Nowhere else in amateur
radio do we separate operators by skill levels, antenna size,
transceiver sensitivity, number of receivers, or any number
of other parameters.
Keep the discussion productive and address cheating - stop using
the cheating problem as a pretense to engage in the amateur
equivalent of class warfare.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 6/14/2010 4:23 PM, Martin Bluhm wrote:
> Sorry Joe, but have to disagree with you on this one up to a point. On the
> cheating angle, I have to agree.
> This horse was ridden very hard and hung up soaking wet a few months back.
> My feelings towards SO2R have not changed; although
> Like I say in the terms of cheating, I go along with you. Not opening the
> former thread again, it comes down to a competitive nature,
> Where the SO2R ops should be in a class by themselves. They are very skilled
> and my hats off to them for doing what they do. A single op operating one
> station cannot compete with another single op who possess the skill and
> hardware to operate two stations almost simo. The numbers do not add up.
> Let them compete with each other. That is the only way.
>
> Enough said, back into the woodwork.
> 73
> Marty
> W8AKS
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 20:13
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
>
>
> > I think SO2R should be in a class by itself. IN ALL CONTESTES... Or
> > lump it together with some multi class.
>
> No! When used properly SO2R is nothing more than a way to change bands
> quickly. If the operator has the hardware and skill to to that legally
> there is nothing wrong with SO2R. If the operator lacks skill (and
> ethical compass) to use the hardware within the rules, report him/her
> to the contest sponsors for the necessary action.
>
> There is no justification for treating one set of SINGLE OPERATORS any
> differently from any others based only on the hardware located in their
> stations.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 6/14/2010 1:36 PM, James Colville wrote:
>> Agreed Cheryl!
>> I think SO2R should be in a class by itself. IN ALL CONTESTES... Or lump
> it
>> together with some multi class.
>>
>> 73
>> Jim W7RY
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Cheryl Whitlock<cherwhit@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Don and all,
>>>
>>> Cheating is one of the reasons I do not like SO2R. That is bad enough,
> but
>>> it ties up too many frequencies on already crowded bands on contests
>>> weekends as well. I don't see things changing until contest sponsors
> start
>>> banning SO2R from the contests, which I would cheer if they did. It
> really
>>> irks me to call CQ and get a message that the frequency is in use, but no
>>> immediate contacts are made.
>>>
>>> As far as cheating in general, I know a ham who has run high power in the
>>> contest, but enters under low power. What is the thrill in that?
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Cheryl, AA4YL
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2937 - Release Date: 06/14/10
> 06:35:00
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|