[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
Mike Fatchett W0MU
w0mu at w0mu.com
Fri Jun 20 12:31:55 EDT 2008
Without any help from me??
Are we talking about skimmer running at my shack and not coming in from the
internet? If so then I had everything to do with it. I provided the radio
and antennas, the computers etc.......
I did not copy the callsign......yet..........
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Taylor
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:19 AM
To: 'Paul J. Piercey'; 'Michael Keane K1MK'; 'Mark Beckwith'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
Your assumption of my (and perhaps others') interests in deeming Skimmer
assistance is just a touch off the mark.
I am not worried about something that makes what we do more efficient.
Efficiency is a good thing.
My only point with Skimmer is that the effective result of using Skimmer is
identical to using packet: without any input from you, spots appear on your
bandmap, just as they do with packet.
THAT'S why I would argue it should be considered assistance, just like it's
fraternal twin, packet. That one is local and that one involves others is
not relevant, in my view.
I have no problem with technology that makes the act of being SO Unassisted
(finding your own stations to work, working them yourself).
From: Paul J. Piercey [mailto:p.piercey at nl.rogers.com]
Sent: June-20-08 6:18 AM
To: ve4xt at mts.net; 'Michael Keane K1MK'; 'Mark Beckwith'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ve4xt at mts.net
> Sent: June 19, 2008 16:08
> To: Michael Keane K1MK; Mark Beckwith
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> Mike, K1MK wrote:> If we do not presume competence on the part of the
> writer as to how
> > the rules were constructed and do not rely upon standard usage when
> > reading the rules, then the rules have no objective meaning.
> > All we have to work with are the words of the rules. We
> cannot treat
> > the rules as if they were written by Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty
> > ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
> -- neither
> > more nor less.").
> This is EXACTLY why I can't fathom how anyone could argue that the WW
> rule "DX Alerting assistance of any kind..." is ambiguous.
> 73, kelly
Yet, here we are.
There are many who want to deem this, and other, new technology "assistance"
because it helps an operator make contacts more efficiently. This can be
said of much of the already accepted technology currently in use. Then there
are others (me included) that feel that "assistance" was spawned to deal
with human interaction through technology only. I regard the fact that
cluster use in certain contests puts you in the Multi-op category as clear
proof of that.
Until the word "assistance" is defined in no uncertain terms this argument
will never end. It doesn't matter how any of us define it. It only matters
how the contest sponsors define it and it should be the priority at this
time for them to come to some concensus and help end this debate.
Define it or get rid of it.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest