Duane,
Totally agree!!!!
You have just said in a few paragraphs something that I have been
trying to be able to say for years.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19je
ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
AMSAT LM-2263
On the web at http://k3oq.net
--
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
On 8/10/07, Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If APRS is to be allowed then we may as well also allow
> contest time phone calls and QSO chat pages. Let's just turn
> VHF contesting into being a 100% outside of the contest
> communications means scheduled operating event. Doing that
> would solve the pesky problem of the APRS gear interfering
> with the "weak signal" gear. And it would also save everybody
> money too, less gear to buy, have, and maintain.
>
> Taking this even further lets allow Q solicitation during the
> contest via repeaters as well. That will surely drum up
> activity since the goal here seems to be geared toward
> finding ways to create more activity at any cost. And then
> make sure that people that are brought in are all easy "shoot
> the fish in barrel" Q's, let's just not trouble ourselves
> with those marginally possible Q's, they're too challenging,
> and they slow my Q rate down too much.
>
> Somewhere a long the way the whole point of what VHF
> contesting is all about I think has become lost. Are we doing
> it just to rack up big Q counts? Or are we doing it to see
> what our *weak signal* gear, and *ourselves* are capable of
> achieving for cumulative *DX* within a 33 hour period? Or are
> we now just trying to see what our out outside of the shack
> networking capabilities are?
>
> I simply don't buy the notion that making contesting *easier*
> is a worthy goal. And I don't think it will entice many new
> participants who will *stick* with it in the *long* run. They
> will quickly bore with it, and be gone after just a few
> contests. Not unlike the way people quickly bore with
> repeater operation.
>
> In addition I just don't buy the notion that:
>
> 1. Easier = more fun.
> 2. More challenging = less fun.
>
> Ham radio from its earliest beginnings was all about seeking
> new challenges, not to be looking for ways to avoid them.
> Those who get into ham radio and avoid challenges rarely
> stick with it, or ever become very active. We just don't want
> to take VHF contesting there too.
>
> Look at the general personality traits of the grizzled
> veterans of VHF weak signal, and VHF contesting. They are
> more often than not those who personally *seek out*
> challenges. They also seek to improve their station's
> capabilities via better equipment that improves their RF
> performance, not their "outside of the shack" data networking
> capability.
>
> Don't get me wrong I'm not against technology and computer
> integration with radio. Far from it. By I think we
> collectively should insist that it be used to increase the RF
> processing, and the *direct* signal finding capability
> (panadapters, waterfalls, etc.) of our stations. As soon as
> we start applying computer technologies as a means to create
> a semi-automated, quasi-scheduling networks for making
> contacts, then we have crossed the line. APRS clearly crosses
> that line.
>
> Duane
> N9DG
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
> for the edge of your seat?
> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
--
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|