[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Taylor
> Sent: April 24, 2008 00:19
> To: 'Robert Chudek - K0RC'; rt_clay at bellsouth.net; 
> cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> 
> Yes, let single operators use any technology they wish. 
> Agreed entirely.
> 
> If they use something that looks like packet and smells like 
> packet, call them assisted.
> 
> Skimmer looks like a goose, walks like a goose and smells 
> like a goose.
> 
> It is assistance. Legal. Let anyone use it who wishes, yes.
> 
> But don't pit those who don't against those who do in the 
> same category.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
>

So... does that mean that guys who use 1 radio don't have to compete in the
same category against guys who use 2 radios?

Ya can't have it both ways.

That being said, I fully agree that a networked CW Skimmer, in my mind, is
the same as the cluster. It is information gleaned from outside your sphere
of influence. If the CW Skimmer is not networked and gets the spots from a
receiver located in your shack, then it is like having a second receiver and
tuning it yourself to find stuff... only it happens electronically.
Unfortunately, with the work done by some on the reflector to use networked
Skimmers, I would not be able to defend the use of the Skimmer as an
unassisted technique.

While I agree with Joe Subich W4TV in his assessment of this topic, the
networking aspect has relegated the Skimmer to the same status as the
cluster in my opinion.

We finally agree on something :)

73 -- Paul VO1HE