[CQ-Contest] polishing my English re Skimmer

[Martin , LU5DX]

Clap Clap Clap Dave!
Nothing to add, but I do need to re-enforce one of your thoughts: Some
people's logic is really wrong!
They tend to call contesters who use DXCluser Hybrid Cyborgs or dunno what.
Like Paul EI5DI.
I spent one year getting ready for CQ WW, analyzing logs, taking my CW RX
speed limmit over 120 WPM, practicing an hour a day with Morse Runner at
the highest level of pile up and stuck my ass to the chair for 48 hours,
mostly keying by hand with an old Bencher BY1, to be called a cyber
something :-)
Just for the fact that  I use something called a band map with info about
stations and the frequency they are on.
These guys think that it's sort of magic, you click on a spot and the score
keeps increasing with no explanation.
They don't even know good contesters listen first and make sure about
calls, not just point and click and call blind.
That's why I had to keep listening for up to three minutes for a big boy to
send his call, before I called in.....

The day will come when a DX Cluster is no longer used to split single op
categories based on something which usage cannot even be proved... The day
will come when ops will be able to decide whether to use it or not and be
just single ops like they actually are now :-)


Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>wrote:

>
> That's really pretty funny considering that you cannot in the least tell
> on the air whether the person you are working is using CW Skimmer or not.
>
> Your English may be fine but your logic definitely is not.  You can think
> of CW Skimmer as simply the combination of a few other things that have
> been in existence (and legal for contesting) for many years:
>
> a.  CW decoders
>
> b.  spotting networks (when claiming an assisted category)
>
> c.  bandmaps
>
> Your rant is sadly misplaced.  I can think of other things like Super
> Check Partial and "History" Files generated by others that have contributed
> far more to the lessening of skill in radiosport than does CW Skimmer, and
> I can almost guarantee that you use your logger or a memory keyer to
> actually send CW instead of using a hand key dit-by-dah as did those
> "founding users" (whatever that means). And you do know that hams,
> including those who use CW Skimmer, are pretty much the only ones keeping
> this elegant communication mode alive, right??  All those other users
> simply abandoned it long ago in favor of modes requiring even less operator
> skill.
>
> For the record, I have never used CW Skimmer in text decode mode during a
> contest ... but I see absolutely no difference between it and other forms
> of assistance when following the rules of the contest.  Please explain to
> me how I am wrong ... but try using logic this time.
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
>
> On 11/29/2012 2:05 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
>
>> I enjoy trying to use the English language to be specific and expressive.
>> Here is my latest effort..............
>>
>> The CW Skimmer is an obscene perversity of ham radio.  All the art and
>> skill of this elegant communication mode, CW, is destroyed.  The founding
>> users of Morse Code, who saved ships and passed millions of messages vital
>> and mundane, are dishonored.  The joy of doing a difficult activity well
>> is
>> lost.  Ham radio in general and contesting specifically is changed forever
>> for the worse by this abomination.
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>