[CQ-Contest] The Meaning of Assisted

Kelly Taylor theroadtrip at mts.net
Mon Sep 20 11:16:14 PDT 2010

This isn't directed at any one individual, irrespective of my choosing one
peron's post to do "reply all" to, so Joe, this isn't directed AT you
personally, 'kay?

Whatever happened to the idea of engaging in an enjoyable activity for the
sake of enjoying it?

Granted, I don't make much of a splash right now, but I have been in or
nearly in a few Top 10 boxes. But irrespective of where my score ends up,
I'm not doing it because I need to win to consider it fun. I'm doing it
because it's fun. That doesn't mean I'm not serious (No. 5 in SS Phone LP is
pretty serious) or that I don't try my hardest when I'm on. But it has to be
fun or it's just work, and I have enough 'work' in my life that I don't need
any more.

I am removing myself entirely from the angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin argument,
because that really has nothing to do with my question, which is:

Is the hobby of radiosport fun enough for you that getting on the air and
running rate and doing as well as you can good enough?

Or is it all just a laborious task made worthwhile only by the possibility
of a meaningless (and it is meaningless, really, when you look at it) piece
of paper or plaque 10 months later?

I suspect if someone says they don't get on the air because they don't like
this rule or that rule, if they were being totally honest with themselves,
they'd have to admit that isn't really the reason they're not very active
any more.

73, kelly

On 9/18/10 6:59 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com> wrote:

> All of this means absolutely squat ... I can easily come up with a
> similar litany of all the things that technology has made possible
> in the last 30 years - including the ability of those who don't know
> the difference between e and t to participate in CW contests.
> However, this anti-technology attitude (or selective approach to
> technology) is the very reason I have been in no hurry to build a
> competitive station again (and don't appear in many logs) even
> though I'm no longer chasing a career half-way across the country
> or raising a family.
> 73,
>     ... Joe, W4TV
> On 9/18/2010 7:27 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>> Oh God.  Here we go again with the same rationale as a couple years ago.
>> As one who has operated from a top flight contest station in MANY contests
>> over the past few years and who has won several contests, I can tell you
>> from personal experience that Skimmer is a quantum level of difference from
>> computers, band maps, split VFOs, memory keyers, etc.  It is a fundamental
>> game changer.
>> Skimmer fills in an entire band map for you without your having to tune the
>> VFO.
>> Skimmer will tell you where your competitors are at all times.  It will also
>> tell you when they have gone on breaks....
>> Skimmer will tell you when a band is first showing signs of life and when a
>> marginal band has become wide open.
>> Skimmer will tell you how fast a station is sending CQ and which station is
>> sending CQ.
>> Skimmer will tell you where unusual openings have taken place - unexpected
>> openings.
>> Skimmer will tell you where holes in the band are so that you can exploit
>> them to start a new run frequency or to move a mult.
>> Etc., etc., etc.
>> This is a level of information that is so far above and beyond what
>> traditional operating is expected to be.  One person listens and decides,
>> using their own judgment, what a callsign is, when a bandchange should be
>> executed, if  a particular path is open, etc.
>> When you log a QSO in your computer, you're doing it with your brain and
>> your fingers.  When you make a QSO, you're using your ears and your mind.
>> When you tune the band you're doing so with your ears and your mind and your
>> fingers.
>> When you're using Skimmer, you do not have to listen for QSOs or callsigns
>> because Skimmer has already pre-filled the entire band map for you.  You
>> don't have to listen for a call to figure out if you've worked it before -
>> Skimmer has already basically done that.  You don't need to put a second
>> receiver on 10 meters and check it periodically because Skimmer will alert
>> you that others have begun CQing on that band.
>> You don't have to wonder if K5ZD has decided to move to 15 meters because
>> Skimmer will tell you that he has.
>> To consider this a simple extension of technology of your own shack simply
>> ignores the principles of single operator contesting that we have known for
>> over 75 years.
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>> On Sep 17, 2010, Joe Subich, W4TV<lists at subich.com>  wrote:
>>> I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how ANYONE could consider
>>> Skimmer to NOT be an assistance aid. You have the entire bandmap
>>> laid out for you without your mind doing anything. It is a complete
>>> game changer and should NOT be ever placed into the same category as
>>> an unassisted operator doing all the operating and listening by
>>> himself.
>> As one who remembers contesting before computers and before bandmaps,
>> *ALL* of the things done by computer were game changers. How anyone
>> can not consider computer logging, bandmaps, SCP, etc. anything other
>> than *assistance* is beyond me.
>> The whole point is that the assistance does not come from any other
>> *person* either directly or via telephone, packet, internet, etc.
>> 73,
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list