[CQ-Contest] Again?

[tgstewart at pepco.com]

Actually, I believe when this first occurred decades ago, there was no 
rule against multiple transmitters in single op.  The word "octopus" comes 
to mind from long ago...

Ty K3MM






BobK8IA at aol.com
Sent by: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
01/24/2003 03:29 PM

 
        To:     w4pa at yahoo.com, cq-contest at contesting.com
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?


In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
w4pa at yahoo.com writes:


> Let me make sure I understand you correctly:  SO2R operation was
> developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules 
> years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
> 
> We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
> 
> Twilight zone, man, twilight zone. 
> 
> Scott Robbins, W4PA
> 
> 

Hi Scott;

Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply 
evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time 
SSers 
W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The 
technology was just different then. 

Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology 
to 
able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective 
SO2R 
thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that can!

73,Bob K8IA
Mesa, Arizona USA
near the Superstition Mtns
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest