Well that was a lot of help Steve....
You can crawl back under your rock now...
Sent using recycled electrons.
> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL <email@example.com> wrote:
> Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973
> and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was
> when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then"
> Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters
> is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they
> compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to
> do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other
> direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T
>> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped...
>> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has
>> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and
>> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while
>> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best
>> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the
>> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC.
>> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine,
>> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset
>> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required
>> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point
>> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc.
>> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be
>> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be
>> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX
>> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not
>> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word
>> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of
>> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity
>> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do
>> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to
>> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do
>> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern
>> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have
>> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the
>> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes.
>> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do
>> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat
>> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the
>> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing
>> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night.
>> 73, Guy K2AV
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe
>>> it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests
>>> that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband
>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has
>>>> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system
>>>> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what
>>>> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY
>>>> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would
>>>> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old
>>>> fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and
>>>> also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force
>>>> all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and
>>>> then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be
>>>> compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth
>>>> chewing over or other methods used.
>>>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain
>>>> has been absent on the bands incl topband.
>>>> 73John - M0ELS
>>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband