Tree wrote:
> I am glad you enjoy roving.
>
> Yes, the captive ones are in the minority, but as the K5TR
> example showed, it doesn't take a lot of them to have a major
> impact to a score.
Unfortunately, George's example was one of mathmatics, not an example of what
has actually happened. While an interesting read, it simply serves as a "heads
up" of potential impact not proof of anything (including if that impact is a bad
thing, necessarily).
> They do exist. I have seen several examples of it poking around
> in the June VHF logs. I am one of the log checkers for the ARRL
> and have access to the logs. This is not a red herring!!
Unfortunately Tree, you are the position of having the data, analyzing the data,
forming an opinion and communicating that opinion to a public forum. Each is a
different skill set -- and the reason for what is referred to as "double-blind
studies" in research projects.
We humans look for correlations that often times don't actually exist...except
in our own minds -- where it makes "perfect sense". I can cite several
examples, including the "fact" that "the sun revolves around the earth". From
simple observation this appears to be true, but only after careful scientific
study has it been shown to not be so.
I would submit that the data that you are reviewing cannot be interpreted in the
way that you suggest for one principal reason: you have used a term that is
undefined -- "captive rovering" -- and are using it in conjunction with it being
a violation of ARRL General Rule for Contests Above 50 MHz 2.3.5. Until
everyone knows how that term is defined, it is impossible to DQ anyone for being
one.
Maybe the thread could morph into a discussion of how "Captive Rover" is
defined?
Perhapse you would consider softening your position in this light?
Kind regards,
Ev Tupis, W2EV
|