On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Les Rayburn wrote:
> Ever notice that some of the biggest detractors of the creation of
> ASSISTED classes for VHF Contesting are also among those who never show
> up in your log? You can do some amazing things on the Internet,
> including doing a search by callsign of CQ and ARRL VHF Contests over
> the last several years. It's interesting to see who submitted a log, and
> who did not.
>
Since I have been the most vocal and I am also the one that equated
the self spotting with CQing. I am guessing that you are saying that
I do not operate in or enter VHF contests? I operate as many as I
can. And I operate every June contest, having only missed a few in 20
years or so. I have operated in all of them at one time or another if
I can get the weekends to work out with my life and other contests.
If you are saying you do not think my view point should be heard
because I do not really know anything about VHF contests or I have
don't operate in enough of them I would suggest that you need to go
look at those contest results a bit more closely.
> opinion unfairly. I think referring to Marshall's proposal to create
> ASSISTED categories in VHF Contests as "calling CQ on the Internt"
> amounts to dirty pool.
If we want to create an assisted single op category in the VHF
contests I do not have a problem with that idea. I would hope that if
we do so we can retain a non-assisted category.
But K5QE wants to add self spotting to the assisted mix for single ops
and multi-ops. I was pointing out that self spotting is really no
different than calling CQ. I would prefer not to be doing that but I
want everyone to think about the implications of rule changes - in
fact I have encouraged K5QE to write up the rules the way he thinks
they should be. I think the exercise of creating the rules gets one
to think though all of the implications of the rules. I have found
that there are many unintended and un-thought of consequences to rules
and rules changes. I think it is worth discussing them a bit and
thinking about how new rules will alter or change the event and the
behavior of the operators in the event.
> Announcing that you are calling CQ on a given frequency, from a given
> location does not constitute a contact.
I never said it did.
Calling CQ on the radio does not constitute a contact either.
But both are means of soliciting a contact.
My main point was and is - is this the direction we want to take VHF
radio contesting? It seems to me the more you rely on the internet or
other non radio means of soliciting, initiating or making radio
contacts the further you get away from the radio part of the radio
contest.
And I just want to make that clear to everyone.
And I want to ask - is that a good thing in the long run?
When you show someone ham radio - a lot of the magic is that you can
tune around the radio and hear stations and call them and make
contacts at random with people that you do not know.
If you have to send an email or call someone on the phone to get them
on the radio so you can show the radio off kind of takes the edge off
the magic. It sends the message that you have to have the internet or
the cell phone or something to even make a radio contact. That just
seems wrong. We already have a lot of hams that think they have to
use DX spotting systems to find and work DX.
In the HF world there has been a change that has happened over time.
And I do not think this change is all that good. As DX spotting
systems have grown over time fewer and fewer people are tuning around
the bands. If you are a DX station you can call CQ for a long time
and not get an answer or get very few answers - that is until the DX
spot goes out then there are many many people that must have been
close to their radios calling you.
The fact that huge members of our hobby are watching their computers
for the DX spots and not tuning the bands hurts all of us. There are
fewer random contacts happening and if you get on and call CQ these
days since few people are tuning it takes much longer for someone to
answer you.
I don't think this is good.
I have only made a few contacts using any of the WSJT modes so I do
not know the answer to this - but can you get on and call CQ on either
MS or EME and get answers without either setting up a sked or
announcing when and where you are transmitting? Are random contacts
common or rare? Or is there a technical reason that random contacts
do not work?
> You can do so fairly on the merit of the ideas, or you can attempt to
> manipulate language. You can create a catchy turn of phrase, or you can
> contribute ideas, effort, time, and yes....logs into the hobby.
I still fail to see how I am manipulating the language by calling an
announcement that is intended to solicit contacts a 'CQ'.
Am I confused about what a 'CQ' is?
If I am then please define these terms or explain to me how the CQ on
the radio is different than the solicitation on the internet.
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|