[CQ-Contest] Cutting edges and cutting corners

[Radio K0HB]

Good post, Art.


On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 13:26 Art Boyars <artboyars at gmail.com> wrote:

> Among the many posts about interleaved CQs and about spotting and RBN
> packet, this quote represents several:
>
> "We can criticize the RBN and packet but used properly by skilled operators
> it is a valuable tool."
>
> Well, yes.  But valuable for what?  Only for this new form of contesting
> that we Tune-For-QSO op's think is getting too far away from what (HF)
> RADIO contesting is supposed to be about.
>
> Does it take (different) skills to use them effectively?  You betcha.  So
> what?
>
> (Which is easier to play: the piano or the violin?  Answer: No.  It might
> be easier to get out your first notes with the piano, but achieving
> excellence is equally difficult.  By definition.)
>
> It would also take some new skills to use a system in which:
>
>   -- You hear a signal, that's a little too weak to copy...
>       but you get part of the call
>   -- Your SCP database figures out possible matches
>   -- Your real-time propagation analyzing software
>       figures out which of the matches
>       might actually be coming through,
>   -- and makes a temporary network connection
>       with those guys, asking, "Are you calling me?"
>   -- Your software accepts only negative replies,
>       so you are not being told who IS calling,
>       only who is NOT calling.
>   -- The not-callers are deleted from the SCP matches.
>   --  You need fewer repeats to log the QSO
>
> I dearly hope none of you think THAT counts as making QSOs by radio.  So,
> now ... how close shall we allow?
>
> 73, Art K3KU
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
-- 
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™