Why do I keep getting snarled up in this thing? <again, slapping myself on the
forehead> :) I've never met a group of folks so dead set against having more
fun. <grin>
Tree wrote:
> I am not trying to control an aspect of CU2QSO. I am referring to rules
> that limit what you can and can't do during a contest and still be called
> a single-operator - unassisted.
You continue to misunderstand CU2QSO...there is no assistance involved. There
is no need to include CU2QSO in any discussion on a topic of assisted vs.
unassisted operation. The two are fully unrelated.
> Actually, maybe that's it.. the CU2QSO system is a spotting system where
> the guy you are about to work is giving you assistance in spotting?
No, No, No. Spotting is not a function of CU2QSO. Stop saying it...please. :)
<after talking about the ARRL's approval of the strategy...>
> It still wasn't a case of happy adoption.
That is only because someone ***failed to understand the system before passing
judgement***. Once they took the time to examine it more closely, they saw just
how well the system fit the rules and reversed the decision. Think of it as a
win for the "instant replay". The first call was ***wrong***, but thankfully
they ran the tape and made the right call.
> Sure, this doesn't cross the line when
> it comes to the technical details... but it is very close to the line
> from a more emotional perspective.
> The truth is, if I tried it myself, I probably wouldn't gain anything
> because I don't think it is being used in my area.
>
> However, I think that trying it wouldn't change my core beliefs about
> what contesting means to me
And here is the bottom line. You have some emotional connection with the
pre-CU2QSO days. No amount of real data can overcome emotion. I will stop
trying.
I am, however, compelled to correct inaccuracies in the portrayal of the CU2QSO
system. Otherwise...no more on this thread of the topic.
Ev, W2EV
http://www.BEACONet.org
follow the hyperlinks for CU2QSO ... or don't. <grin>
|