[RTTY] Two sides

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Phil. 

> But in the SO1R / SOmR discussion, it looks to me as if the SO2R
> side is saying there's really no need for a SO1R restriction. The
> case being, they have as much of an opportunity of scoring as 
> does everyone else. Of course the falacy of the argument is that
> 'little guns' can possibly outperform 'big guns' if they had the
> right operator or the right location for scoring big. 

That's not what I'm saying at all ... 

What I'm saying is that SO2R is one more tool for the operator.  It 
belongs in the same toolbox as antenna choices, learning propagation, 
learning how to effectively operate the radio, understanding how to 
make the station more efficient, etc.  

Don, AA5AU says on his web site that he started doing SO2R to make 
up for the handicap of antennas in the "attic dipole" class.  He 
still does not have an antenna farm that it the equivalent of K4GMH 
or many of the elite class contesters.  Without SO2R it is likely 
that Don could not possibly compete at the level he does ... Sure, 
he might do very well in a "tribander and wires" category but that 
is because he's that good an operator.  Don is not the only one in 
that boat ... they use the tools at their disposal to get the best 
result they can with whatever resources at their disposal. 

What a "one radio only" category does is punish those who do not 
have the ability to do big antennas ... who live on small lots 
and can only have a short tower with a small tribander.  It does 
not give them the opportunity to use other tools to compensate. 

If one wants to limit the choice of tools, then limit ALL of them. 
If the intent is to prohibit me or anyone else from using SOmR to 
"gain an unfair advantage" over you, then why should those with 
"attic antennas" say they don't want you to have your directive 
antennas to "gain an unfair advantage" over them?  

If the goal is to make contesting more accessible and more inviting 
to newcomers and those who don't (yet?) have big antennas or SOmR 
capabilities, why are we not talking about a basic category that 
is "one transceiver and single element antennas" - specifically 
"flagpole verticals, trap verticals, inverted L/end fed wires, and 
dipoles or an inverted V no higher than 30'?  That is the "no tools" 
(or limited level) ... beyond that it should be up to the individual 
which tools he chooses to employ.  It should be up to the individual 
operator to decide if he will get the biggest return on investment 
by installing a 90' tower with stacked C31XR tribanders or if he 
will be better served with a 50' tower, 3L SteppIR, trapped vertical 
and SO2R.  

Shelby's proposal, whether it is written as a separate category for 
SO1R or a separate category for SO2R (the effect is the same) would 
say that SOmR is, by definition, such an overwhelming advantage as 
to be the equivalent of running high power or receiving assistance 
(multiple operators).  The problem is, SOmR does not provide that 
kind of benefit.  Like every other tool in the contesters' kit, 
the benefit from SOmR depends on the skill of the user and the other 
tools available to him.  Shelby's proposal to "have a {separate] SO1R 
category" says that SOmR on it's face and without regard for any other 
resources and individual station may have is so "different" that those 
operators cannot be considered on the same basis as those who have only 
one radio.  Nothing except that second or third transceiver matters. 

Frankly, that is just plain wrong.  It is bigotry of the first order. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV