[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Expeditions Remote

[David Gilbert]

Paul publicly asked for a response from me to that link.  I responded 
privately, but since you bring it up again below is the full text of 
what I replied to him:

And with that, I'm going to abide by my last comment below and won't be 
contributing to this argument any further.

Dave   AB7E

*************************************************


Paul,

I read the statements in your link, and ... in my opinion ... it all 
boils down to the question of whether a valid contact is made between 
two operators or between two radios.  A remote operation puts a non-RF 
link between the two operators, but not between the two radios.

If your definition of a valid contact is a function of making the best 
use of propagation, power, antennas, noise level, timing, performance of 
the radio, ability to copy under difficult conditions, etc (all of which 
are part of traditional ham radio) to exchange callsigns and reports, 
than it doesn't really require that either operator actually be seated 
at the radio ... especially since both radios are under the direct 
control of their respective operators.  In the one case, the operator 
controls the radio with his hands.  In the other, the operator controls 
the radio with his hands via an extra link, but *the RF still goes 
through the same path* and is subject to the same conditions in both cases.

I, and MANY other hams, use computer control of my transceiver during 
contests for logging, changing frequency, and typically even for sending 
CW.  I don't use prefills (the laughably called Call History Files that 
are comprised of somebody else's history) and I don't use spotting 
networks ... but that's just my personal preference.  My transceiver is 
still connected to me *via a digital link over a cable*, albeit a short 
one.  In my opinion, that's fundamentally not much different than a much 
longer one. Some people use WiFi to control their rig from another room 
in the house separate from where the radio is located.

Contrary to what you are claiming, I've tried to use comparisons like 
this with you in the past.  You've rejected this out of hand, and I'm 
confident you will do this now as well.

It's not a matter of fact ... it's just a matter of opinion what 
constitutes a valid connection.  You have yours, and many others have a 
different one.   As I said publicly, you don't express an opinion ... 
you (loudly) proclaim your view as fact.  The folks that offer various 
rewards and run contests have clearly said that it's the RF link alone 
that determines a contact.  I don't think you really have the right to 
dispute that, and if you want you could always create your own program 
as a counter offering.

But you won't.  You'll just keeping telling everyone how wrong they are.

I really don't want to keep debating you on this.  It's like arguing 
religion or abortion, and it's fruitless for both of us.

Regards,
Dave  AB7E

************************************************



On 1/10/2026 2:05 PM, kq2m at kq2m.com wrote:
>
> Your synopsis at https://ei5di.com/remote.html is beautifully and 
> accurately expressed Paul!
>
> 73
>
> Bob, KQ2M
>
> (who has operated remote and likes it as an operating/technology 
> option, but will never agree that it belongs
> in the same operating category as a 100% onsite NON-remote qso.)
>
>
>
> On 2026-01-10 07:57, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> On 09/01/2026 22:13, Dave AB7E wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with most of that, but the problem with Paul is that he 
>>> never just expresses an opinion ... he ALWAYS puts forth everything 
>>> on this subject as an absolute statement of hard fact, and he does 
>>> it at every opportunity.  It's pretty over the top.
>>
>> But the problem with Dave is that he is wilfully blind to hard facts, 
>> and he ignores opinions that don't correspond to his own. He would 
>> rather disparage me than address the issues, and he does this at 
>> every opportunity.  It's pretty discouraging, but I'll keep trying.
>>
>> For over ten years, Dave has yet to respond to any of the issues here 
>> - https://ei5di.com/remote.html
>>
>> He ALWAYS refuses to debate them.  All he does is "disagree", but 
>> will not say why.  All in all, he's pretty disagreeable.
>>
>> Of course, that's just my opinion :-)
>>
>> 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