[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 20

[Hi3tej hi3tej]

Hi folks:
Just a short worlds ab the SO2R, The bad part of the show is when the 
operator
call CQ on 2 bands at once and send the log into SO 1 radio, Not fare but we 
must
believe and trust  in the good faith rule...

HI3TEJ, Ted
73's



>From: rtty-request at contesting.com
>Reply-To: rtty at contesting.com
>To: rtty at contesting.com
>Subject: RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 20
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:18:01 -0400
>
>Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
>	rtty at contesting.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	rtty-request at contesting.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	rtty-owner at contesting.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
>    2. Re: Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint (Joe Subich, W4TV)
>    3. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Tom Osborne)
>    4. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Jay Kloss)
>    5. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:47:12 -0400
>From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>To: "'Jay Kloss'" <n4cbk.jay at gmail.com>,	"'RTTY Reflector'"
>	<rtty at contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <002401c7f6ee$e7263a40$0400000a at laptop>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> > I would be willing to bet that the guys who are running SO2R are
> > judging their relative success by comparing their scores to the other
> > guys who run SO2R. And I guarantee you that they know who their
> > competition is. So, in a sense, they likely already consider
> > themselves in another 'category', another higher level of excellence
> > and expertise. Creating an 'official' SO2R category seems like an easy
> > step to make if you are a contest sponsor. And quite frankly, it would
> > simply be thrilling to watch the scores from contest to contest as
> > these incredible SO2R operators compete.
>
>Not again ...
>
>SO2R is simply one more tool to maximize a score.  To paraphrase:
>I'm willing to bet that those who have (monoband, stacks, etc.) yagi
>antennas are judging their relative success by comparing their
>scores to the other guys who run (monoband, stacks, etc.) yagi
>antennas.  And I guarantee you that they know who their competition
>is."  I can guarantee they don't care who their competition is -
>they are simply there to make the most QSOs and generate the
>biggest score they can as a single operator.
>
>The same is true with SO2R ... AA5AU has commented more than once
>that since he could not possibly have a big antenna farm, he adopted
>SO2R to allow him to compete against the guys with big antennas
>(he does might well <G>).  SO2R is in no way, nor should it be,
>a "separate class."  It is but another tool like a separate
>receiver, memory keyer, Digital Voice keyer, computer logging, etc.
>that allows the operator to be more efficient and any time someone
>starts to limit the tools available to the operator you might as
>well start imposing height/weight/speed/strength restrictions on
>those who play in the NFL.
>
>73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jay Kloss
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:30 AM
> > To: RTTY Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> >
> >
> > Greetings All,
> >
> > I would be willing to bet that the guys who are running SO2R are
> > judging their relative success by comparing their scores to the other
> > guys who run SO2R. And I guarantee you that they know who their
> > competition is. So, in a sense, they likely already consider
> > themselves in another 'category', another higher level of excellence
> > and expertise. Creating an 'official' SO2R category seems like an easy
> > step to make if you are a contest sponsor. And quite frankly, it would
> > simply be thrilling to watch the scores from contest to contest as
> > these incredible SO2R operators compete.
> >
> > At the same time, it would be nice to be able to tell from the scores
> > that I was competing (mostly against myself) but also alongside
> > someone with a similar methodology as myself. That way, I would have
> > someone to set my sites on and emulate who is also up there in that
> > high, thin air with the SO2R guys, but is running 1O1R like me.
> >
> > So, to all of you amazing SO2R guys with your 'fantastic flying
> > machines', knock our socks off! And we'll hope that your esteemed
> > voices will persuade contest sponsors to establish more equitable
> > categories in the future.
> >
> > TNX es GL de N4CBK, Jay.
> > Auburn, Alabama.
> > Alabama Contest Group.
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:57:12 -0400
>From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint
>To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat at copper.net>,	"'RTTY Reflector'"
>	<rtty at contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <002f01c7f6f0$4c41c0b0$0400000a at laptop>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> > please remember that from day one, nobody has proposed outlawing
> > SO2R, only that it should be classed as a separate category from
> > SO1R.
>
>When sponsors start enforcing separate categories for antennas with
>more than one half wavelength in any dimension and antenna supports
>taller than 50 feet, it will be time to consider a separate category
>for SO2R.  When sponsors propose separate categories for computer
>logging, memory keyers, stored voice keyers, and separate receivers
>(including dual receiver transceivers), it will be time to propose
>a separate category for SO2R.  Until then there is absolutely no
>justification for singling out one technique for making an operator
>more efficient and ignoring the others.
>
>This "separate category for SO2R" is complete crap ... SO2R has been
>used in one form or another for at least 40 years just like automatic
>devices for sending CW or repeating voice messages.  Technology has
>made SO2R easier to implement, easier to use, and more available to
>a larger number of operators just as it has brought memory keyers,
>digital voice keyers, and computer logging into the mainstream.  By
>the way, the same technology has also brought RTTY into the mainstream
>and made it far easier for the average amateur to participate in RTTY
>contesting.  Should there be a separate category for every one *NOT*
>using a model 15 and vacuum tube terminal unit?
>
>Lead, follow, or get out of the way but don't stand in the way of
>technology.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:39 AM
> > To: RTTY Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint
> >
> >
> > ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:00:55 -0400, "Shelby Summerville"
> > <k4ww at arrl.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Just thought those that don't subscribe to the contesting
> > reflector, would
> > >find this interesting reading? Has someone, other that the "ignored"
> > >majority of contesters, finally understood what has been
> > said for several
> > >years?
> >
> > ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> >
> > Before the catfight begins, please remember that from day one, nobody
> > has proposed outlawing SO2R, only that it should be classed as a
> > separate category from SO1R. There is at least one contest which
> > already does this - the XE RTTY - and I think there is one other which
> > I can't recall at the moment.
> >
> > Bill W6WRT
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:22:07 -0700
>From: "Tom Osborne" <w7why at verizon.net>
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>To: "RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <031b01c7f6fc$29649e80$eec8fea9 at Tom>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
>	reply-type=original
>
>Hi Joe
>
>I agree with your statements.
>
>I run SO2R, but it is probably SO 1/2 R the way I do it :-)
>
>With my peanut whistle station, I'll never be in the top 10 ( or 20 or 30)
>but I still plug along because I have fun doing it.  The second radio makes
>it more fun, and I think that is why I do it.  I can't imagine doing a
>contest any more with only 1 radio, even if it is just to see what is going
>on on the other bands.  Also, it gives me something to do between
>contests-building stubs, antenna switching, etc.
>
>I don't see why someone with a small station using 2 radios has an 
>advantage
>than a station with stacks, etc, using 1 radio.   I think if I had my
>choice, I'd rather have the second setup, but I don't.
>
>If we ARE going to have a separate class for SO2R, then we would have to
>divide it into SO2R expert and SO2R fumble finger to keep things 'level' .
>I think a better class would be 'SO 2-190 foot towers, 10, 15, 20, 40 
>stack,
>80 meter beam, 160 4-square, 1R :^)  73
>Tom W7WHY
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The same is true with SO2R ... AA5AU has commented more than once
> > that since he could not possibly have a big antenna farm, he adopted
> > SO2R to allow him to compete against the guys with big antennas
> > (he does might well <G>).  SO2R is in no way, nor should it be,
> > a "separate class."
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:44:59 -0600
>From: "Jay Kloss" <n4cbk.jay at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
>Message-ID:
>	<c2cee24b0709141344j2e7236b4pf9934324b3a967d5 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>So you are suggesting, Joe, with the opening line "Not again", that
>yours is the only opinion that has merit?  That with your implied
>eye-roll you presume to end a friendly debate among good friends? I'm
>sorry if the subject irritates you, but I am still interested in what
>others have to say on the matter. Maybe I missed out on last year's
>debate. Perhaps you should just sit back and chuckle and chalk this up
>up to "those wacky youngsters!"
>
>Your argument suggests that this debate is about wanting to "limit the
>tools available to the operator". It is certainly not my point, and I
>can't find a posting that outright suggests that SO2R not be allowed
>under any circumstances. Some people might feel this way. But isn't it
>more likely that they are trying to say, "How about setting up a
>distinct category of operation that promotes and highlights the skill
>of these great operators? A category that _they_ would choose to
>compete in."
>
>You also have suggested that SO2R is just another tool and equivalent
>to having a "voice keyer, memory keyer, Digital Voice keyer, computer
>logging". I would submit that SO2R is mostly skill.  I've heard it
>explained like this: "SO2R is like that creepy organ music tune you
>always hear some creepy guy playing in the creepy haunted house -- the
>"Toccata Fugue". There is a part in that tune where you are playing a
>triplet (three notes over and over again) on one hand, while at the
>same time alternating two notes on the other. SO2R is like _that_."
>Try it. Go 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3 on one hand while doing 1-2, 1-2, 1-2
>on the other. Just like patting your head and rubbing your belly with
>the other. Skill, talent, whatever you want to call it. In SO2R the
>2nd radio is certainly a tool. But the SO is the skill.
>
>Speaking of tools, the examples you cite as tools ("voice keyer,
>memory keyer, and Digital voice keyer") are all the same thing
>performing the same function one way or another. Distilled, your two
>examples are "an automatic keyer" of some kind, and "computer
>logging". Anyone running N1MM or Writelog have these features
>available to them. And in fact, most of the "computer logging"
>software you mention is capable of performing these functions. Anyone
>still running a Model 15? Got a paper log? Hardly. In these areas the
>playing field is rather level without much expense or effort. But I
>agree that these things are tools. However, I maintain that running
>SO2R largely requires most excellent skills on the part of the
>operator.
>
>You also used the NFL football analogy, saying in essence that we are
>all in one Big League, and all at the same level of fitness, age, and
>human ability. I was a 225 pound linebacker on a state championship
>team and gave many a quarterback a nice big bear-hug and helped him
>attach turf-grass to his face-mask. Should my skill-set be compared to
>the Pee-Wees? Do I want them to?  In fact, you say, "you might as well
>start imposing /height/weight/speed/strength restrictions on those who
>play in the NFL." But we aren't in the NFL. We _are_ in the Pee-Wee's,
>Gray-Y, Highschool, college, AND the NFL, all at the same time.
>
>You also say that you are certain that "...they don't care who their
>competition is - ". I can assure you from my first-hand acquaintance
>with a number of amazing hardcore, big-bat-swinging contest-smashing,
>SO2R-ing ACG and SECC dogs that they do indeed know who their
>competition is -- because they have risen to that level of skill. They
>win contests, and heartily call for a worthy opponent.
>
>Let me again adopt the tone of my first note on this subject, and see
>if I can convey my abject appreciation at how great the SO2R guys are
>for using their skills to achieve such amazing heights of contesting
>excellence by asking, "Wouldn't it be great if there was a special
>distinction, a notable partitioning of our most skilled
>radio-athletes, a lofty bar set high and apart for the likes of our
>greatest champions, upon which they would test themselves amongst each
>other, to their satisfaction, and our wonder?"
>
>Perhaps they themselves will call for a category worthy of their
>fellow SO2R opponents.
>
>73 de Jay, N4CBK
>Auburn, AL.
>Alabama Contest Group
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:17:52 -0400
>From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>To: "'Jay Kloss'" <n4cbk.jay at gmail.com>,	"'RTTY Reflector'"
>	<rtty at contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <005701c7f71d$181a2f70$0400000a at laptop>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>Jay,
>
>Putting aside all the other stuff ...
>
> > Anyone running N1MM or Writelog have these features
> > available to them. And in fact, most of the "computer logging"
> > software you mention is capable of performing these functions.
>
>Anyone running N1MM, Writelog, Win-Test, CTWin, etc. also have
>SO2R features available to them.  Just as some phone operators
>choose not to make the wave files necessary to use voice keying,
>not all operators choose to connect the added hardware (second
>radio) to do SO2R.  That's their choice.
>
> > You also have suggested that SO2R is just another tool and
> > equivalent to having a "voice keyer, memory keyer, Digital
> > Voice keyer, computer logging". I would submit that SO2R is
> > mostly skill.
>
>I believe technique and hardware are interchangeable tools to
>maximize one's score.  AA5AU has used technique and one set of
>hardware (SO2R) to compete effectively against those who have
>chosen a different mix of technique and tools.  Why should one
>set of tools (antennas) to be allowed in any category while
>another set (SO2R) be relegated to a separate category?  Why
>should any operator be required to eschew one set of tools -
>particularly what you call a "skill" (that may have taken many
>years to perfect) - in order to participate in the largest and
>most competitive classification (single-operator)?
>
> > You also used the NFL football analogy, saying in essence that
> > we are all in one Big League, and all at the same level of
> > fitness, age, and human ability. I was a 225 pound linebacker
> > on a state championship team and gave many a quarterback a nice
> > big bear-hug and helped him attach turf-grass to his face-mask.
> > Should my skill-set be compared to the Pee-Wees? Do I want them
> > to?  In fact, you say, "you might as well start imposing
> > height/weight/speed/strength restrictions on those who play
> > in the NFL." But we aren't in the NFL. We _are_ in the Pee-Wee's,
> > Gray-Y, Highschool, college, AND the NFL, all at the same time.
>
>The single operator category of any contest is already the NFL -
>or the "Open Championship" of the contesting world.  By separating
>SO2R and not big antennas or CW Keyers or operators who can send
>CW with both hands or operators who can type more than 60 WPM,
>you are simply saying to a portion of the "teams" in the league,
>you've become too good at kicking off - your kicker can't use his
>right (dominant) leg.
>
>Like golf, you don't prohibit a Tiger Woods from using his big
>driver just because some weekend hacker doesn't have one or
>hasn't mastered its use.  The hacker, if he chooses, can still
>enter the qualifier and take his shot.  He can use any legal
>equipment or skill that he posses in his quest to win the big
>one.  Now, he may never compete with Woods or the other elite
>players but he has entered the same tournament and he may even
>get as much (or more) satisfaction from doing his best even if
>he doesn't end up in the top 10 (or 20, 30 or even 100).
>
> > Anyone still running a Model 15? Got a paper log? Hardly. In
> > these areas the playing field is rather level without much
> > expense or effort.
>
>They may not be running a model 15 ... but there are a lot of
>beginners still running a KAM or PK232 with software other than
>the top of the line contest programs.  Some are still using
>a "terminal program" and logging on paper.  They'll probably
>advance ... heaven forbid, some may even advance to SO2R or
>build big antennas if doing so doesn't somehow single them
>out.
>
>I keep going back to Don's experience - not all operators can
>build big antenna farms.  Contesting is about using all of the
>tools and skill the operator can manage.  The better operators
>have always used skill - whether it be a better understanding
>of propagation, the ability to hear weaker signals, the ability
>to copy more than one station at a time, or the ability to stay
>more alert - to outperform other operators with better hardware.
>It hasn't always been the biggest antenna farm or the newest
>rig, etc. that has taken the day.  Take away the ability to
>use skill, strategy, agility, etc. and you might as well turn
>the NFL into UFC because nothing more than raw strength and
>aggression will matter.
>
>Giving the little guy a chance to develop his own set of tools
>is the right way.  You don't want every player on a football
>team to be a 250 pound linebacker ... you need the 300 pound
>lineman,  the 4.3 tailback, the 6'8" wide receiver and the
>5'6" 160# place-kicker to have a complete team.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jay Kloss
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:45 PM
> > To: RTTY Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> >
> >
> > So you are suggesting, Joe, with the opening line "Not again", that
> > yours is the only opinion that has merit?  That with your implied
> > eye-roll you presume to end a friendly debate among good friends? I'm
> > sorry if the subject irritates you, but I am still interested in what
> > others have to say on the matter. Maybe I missed out on last year's
> > debate. Perhaps you should just sit back and chuckle and chalk this up
> > up to "those wacky youngsters!"
> >
> > Your argument suggests that this debate is about wanting to "limit the
> > tools available to the operator". It is certainly not my point, and I
> > can't find a posting that outright suggests that SO2R not be allowed
> > under any circumstances. Some people might feel this way. But isn't it
> > more likely that they are trying to say, "How about setting up a
> > distinct category of operation that promotes and highlights the skill
> > of these great operators? A category that _they_ would choose to
> > compete in."
> >
> > You also have suggested that SO2R is just another tool and equivalent
> > to having a "voice keyer, memory keyer, Digital Voice keyer, computer
> > logging". I would submit that SO2R is mostly skill.  I've heard it
> > explained like this: "SO2R is like that creepy organ music tune you
> > always hear some creepy guy playing in the creepy haunted house -- the
> > "Toccata Fugue". There is a part in that tune where you are playing a
> > triplet (three notes over and over again) on one hand, while at the
> > same time alternating two notes on the other. SO2R is like _that_."
> > Try it. Go 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3 on one hand while doing 1-2, 1-2, 1-2
> > on the other. Just like patting your head and rubbing your belly with
> > the other. Skill, talent, whatever you want to call it. In SO2R the
> > 2nd radio is certainly a tool. But the SO is the skill.
> >
> > Speaking of tools, the examples you cite as tools ("voice keyer,
> > memory keyer, and Digital voice keyer") are all the same thing
> > performing the same function one way or another. Distilled, your two
> > examples are "an automatic keyer" of some kind, and "computer
> > logging". Anyone running N1MM or Writelog have these features
> > available to them. And in fact, most of the "computer logging"
> > software you mention is capable of performing these functions. Anyone
> > still running a Model 15? Got a paper log? Hardly. In these areas the
> > playing field is rather level without much expense or effort. But I
> > agree that these things are tools. However, I maintain that running
> > SO2R largely requires most excellent skills on the part of the
> > operator.
> >
> > You also used the NFL football analogy, saying in essence that we are
> > all in one Big League, and all at the same level of fitness, age, and
> > human ability. I was a 225 pound linebacker on a state championship
> > team and gave many a quarterback a nice big bear-hug and helped him
> > attach turf-grass to his face-mask. Should my skill-set be compared to
> > the Pee-Wees? Do I want them to?  In fact, you say, "you might as well
> > start imposing /height/weight/speed/strength restrictions on those who
> > play in the NFL." But we aren't in the NFL. We _are_ in the Pee-Wee's,
> > Gray-Y, Highschool, college, AND the NFL, all at the same time.
> >
> > You also say that you are certain that "...they don't care who their
> > competition is - ". I can assure you from my first-hand acquaintance
> > with a number of amazing hardcore, big-bat-swinging contest-smashing,
> > SO2R-ing ACG and SECC dogs that they do indeed know who their
> > competition is -- because they have risen to that level of skill. They
> > win contests, and heartily call for a worthy opponent.
> >
> > Let me again adopt the tone of my first note on this subject, and see
> > if I can convey my abject appreciation at how great the SO2R guys are
> > for using their skills to achieve such amazing heights of contesting
> > excellence by asking, "Wouldn't it be great if there was a special
> > distinction, a notable partitioning of our most skilled
> > radio-athletes, a lofty bar set high and apart for the likes of our
> > greatest champions, upon which they would test themselves amongst each
> > other, to their satisfaction, and our wonder?"
> >
> > Perhaps they themselves will call for a category worthy of their
> > fellow SO2R opponents.
> >
> > 73 de Jay, N4CBK
> > Auburn, AL.
> > Alabama Contest Group
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>End of RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 20
>************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/