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

Tue Aug 24 15:15:43 EDT 2021

But only if the radio doesn't have DSP, a built in keyer, a built in voice
keyer, a synthesizer, dual VFOs.  Maybe it should be rockbound.  I miss my
HW-16.

73 John AF5CC

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 6:19 AM rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:

> A lot of hams are indeed anti technology.
>
> Anything beyond "a boy and his radio" twiddling knobs is viewed as
> "not real ham radio."
>
> It's a pervasive attitude in some circles in ham radio.
>
> And it's against both basis and purpose and the amateur's code.
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:58 PM ku8e <ku8e at ku8e.com> wrote:
> >
> > RiaMaybe you did but before that statement you stated that "Hams are
> anti-technology". It seems to me you were suggesting that anyone who
> doesn't embrace assisted technology such as skimmer was against technology.
> Most serious contesters use lots of technology such as logging computers,
> radio control, CW keying, voicekeyers etc...I didn't rant about anything. I
> was just stating the facts. BTW not wanting to embrace technology isn't
> limited to only amateur radio. I have many older friends and family that
> just like doing things the way they always have.JeffSent from my Verizon,
> Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> > -------- Original message --------From: rjairam at gmail.com Date:
> 8/23/21  7:05 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com> Cc:
> CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com> Subject: Re:
> [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of Contesting. Re-read what I
> said. You read the first part then went off on a rantbased on that alone.I
> did say you should have a choice. But "Please, no, a thousand timesNO!" by
> Hans means that he doesn't want that piece of tech to exist.THAT is being
> anti-technology.RiaN2RJOn Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:17 PM Jeff Clarke <
> ku8e at ku8e.com> wrote:>> Ria,>> With all due respect just because some of
> us of us don't want to use> certain technologies doesn't make us "anti
> technology"? Do all of us> have to operate the same way using the same
> technologies? Have you ever> thought that there are many contesters who
> like to operate non-assisted> because it gives them more personal
> satisfaction? Personally I get more> satisfaction finding my own contacts
> and multipliers instead of> operating in a way that's like catching fish in
> a barrel. I can> guarantee there are many contesters who have the same
> feeling as I do. I> have no problem if people operate the way they want to.
> (assisted or> non-assisted) Unfortunately the Single-Op rule changes in CQ
> WPX has> taken away the option to choose the way you want to operate.
> Pretty much> you have to operate assisted if you want to have a competitive
> score.>> Jeff KU8E>>> On 8/22/2021 5:49 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:> >
> 97.1 Basis and purpose.> >> > ...> >> > (b) Continuation and extension of
> the amateur's proven ability to> > contribute to the advancement of the
> radio art.> >> > 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).> >> > You
> don't have to use a voice skimmer, but someone will invent it. I> > hope
> that contest rules at least adapt to it - keep the unassisted> > categories
> (too late CQ WPX) without skimmer but allow it for assisted> > or
> "unlimited" categories.> >> > We already have the existing cluster with all
> of the "mechanical> > turks" putting in DX spots anyway.> >> > 73> > Ria,
> N2RJ> >> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:01 PM Hans Brakob <kzerohb at gmail.com>
> wrote:> >> Please, no, a thousand times NO!> >>> >> 73, de Hans, KØHB> >>
> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™> >> ________________________________> >> From:
> CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+kzerohb=gmail.com at contesting.com> on
> behalf of Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com>> >> Sent: Friday,
> August 20, 2021 7:25:35 AM> >> To: Frank Donovan W3LPL (Frank Donovan
> W3LPL) <donovanf at erols.com>> >> Cc: reflector cq-contest <
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com>> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction
> of the Future of Contesting.> >>> >> I guess the logical follow-up is
> what's next:> >>> >> I vote for voice "skimmer"...> >>> >> 73 Rich NN3W>
> >>> >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:18 AM <donovanf at erols.com> wrote:> >>>
> >>> Thanks for sharing this Pete.> >>>> >>>> >>> Many of the forecasts
> proved to be accurate, but as often happens> >>> with forecasts , two of
> the most revolutionary changes that have> >>> greatly impacted contesting
> were totally unanticipated:> >>>> >>>> >>> - CW Skimmer and its associated
> Reverse Beacon Network, and> >>> - Explosive growth in the use of digital
> error correcting protocols,> >>> especially FT8> >>>> >>>> >>> "It’s tough
> to make predictions, especially about the future" – Yogi Berra> >>>> >>>
> 73> >>> Frank> >>> W3LPL> >>>> >>> ----- Original Message -----> >>>> >>>
> From: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <pete.n4zr at gmail.com>> >>> To: "reflector
> cq-contest" <CQ-Contest at Contesting.COM>> >>> Sent: Friday, August 20,
> 2021 2:17:22 AM> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Past Prediction of the Future of
> Contesting.> >>>> >>> In 2007, ES5TV compiled reflector users'
> predictions/guesses/wild-ass> >>> guesses about what contesting would look
> like ten years hence. It's now> >>> 4 years past his original time horizon,
> and I thought people would find> >>> it interesting, so I've put it in my
> Dropbox account at> >>>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0>
> >>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzpj6vhxuqtp6sf/10%20years%20later.pdf?dl=0>.>
> >>> Feel free to download the pdf and giggle...> >>>> >>> --> >>> 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.> >>>> >>>
> _______________________________________________> >>> 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> >>
> _______________________________________________> >> 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>
> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
> mailing listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://
> lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>