[CQ-Contest] single-op pornography

Kerr, Prof. K.M. k.kerr at abdn.ac.uk
Mon Jun 16 04:35:34 EDT 2008

I agree 100%. This seems to me to be the core of the debate. ANYTHING which finds, identifies and displays potential QSO partners in a way that the SO without this particular technology could not IS what we currently understand as ASSISTANCE.
If this is accepted, I see no need to change rules.
Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of kr2q at optimum.net
Sent: 16 June 2008 02:10
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] single-op pornography

Defining "Assisted," especially in terms of Skimmer is somewhat like pornography - "I know it when I see it." [Justice Potter Stewart]  In other words, observation tells much.

Watch a single op and then watch a single-op using DX alerting methods.
What they do and especially how they do it are different.
Then watch a single-op using skimmer.   Which one does skimmer look like more?

By observation alone (someone standing in the shack, looking at what is happening).....
the "assisted" op seems to have a-priori knowledge of not only where to go (qrg) but what call sign to copy (giving the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they copy the call).  Why?
Because they DO have a-priori knowledge of same.

The single-op is "exploring" (unless passing) while the SOA is taking directed actions.


de Doug KR2Q

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list