[CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting.

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

As someone who was around for the general introduction of SSB in ham 
radio (can I really be THAT old?) this is nothing but more of the same.  
I also remember when #1 on the DXCC Honor Roll had a single 3-element 
20-meter yagi at about 30 feet, on the side of his house.  Should we 
dismiss everyone who came after because they had taller towers, more 
elements, or (horrors!) used cluster spots?

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network
web server at <http://beta.reversebeacon.net>.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 8/22/2021 10:06 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> And I said exactly that.
>
> I want unassisted to remain, but I think that if a voice skimmer comes
> along it shouldn't be reflexively banned. It should be accommodated in
> a category that allows for that kind of assistance or another new
> category.
>
> But wanting the entire state of amateur radio and contesting
> technology to be permanently frozen in time goes against what amateur
> radio is about.
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:20 PM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/2021 22:49, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Hams being so anti technology is mind blowing. I have never seen such
>>> a paradox except in ham radio.
>>>
>>> (yes, it also talks about skill but that doesn't mean we have to shun
>>> technology).
>> Not all technology is, by definition, appropriate.  When new
>> technologies change the fundamental nature of an activity, the very
>> thing that gives that activity its name, then the name needs to change
>> accordingly.
>>
>> After all, add an engine (200-year-old technology) and sailboat racing
>> becomes powerboat racing.
>>
>> The issue facing ham radio is that some technologies have the potential
>> to eliminate operating skills entirely.   To object is not to be
>> anti-technology - it is to be anti-inappropriate-technology.
>>
>> There has to be limits - I suggest a digital non-proliferation treaty
>> might be in order.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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