[CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject

[Guy Molinari]

The sign of a good compromise is one in which no one is happy.
 
I suggest putting skimmer in the assisted category.
 
I agree, it is very cool technology.   It just doesn't encourage the building of radio skills.   I do think it may increase the number of QSO's which otherwise wouldn't happen. 
 
Increased activity is a good thing.
 
73 - Guy, N7ZG



> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:21:43 -0400> From: mjc5 at psu.edu> To: cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject> > > On Mar 23, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:> > Joe,> >> > Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that I would rather see> > CW Contesting stay like it is for another ten years and then> > DIE than have it change to a fully automated mode in two years> > so the only possibility of winning would be for you to> > have an automated QSO machine.> >> > And as a person who runs a contest, I have a vested and personal > interest that CW remains around as long as possible.> > What we have here is an apparent radical difference in interpretation > to boot. Some see CW skimmer as opening the floodgates to completely > automated operations, and others see it as cool technology.> > If automated stations are the end result of technological advanced, I > want to see the automated rtty stations.> > -73 de Mike N3LI -> > > _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference.  Learn more.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause