[RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Please, Joe! For the ten billionth time, nobody wants you to 
> "eschew" any of your skills. We just want them to be in their 
> appropriate category.

Bill - you just don't "get it."  

This isn't an "appropriate category" issue - separate but equal 
was struck down more than 50 years ago.  For both the SO1R and 
SO2R operator, if they are playing by the rules, all operating 
is performed by a single operator and only one signal (transmitter) 
is on the air at any time.  It doesn't make a bit of difference 
how many receivers the operator can listen to, how many transmitters 
he has in his shack, or how many antennas he has outside.  You are 
making an argument based on the "value" or investment in a station. 

If you are going to make SO2R a separate category you are 
"eschewing" a particular skill.  I guarantee it is entirely 
possible - as shown by the YUs at WRTC - to do "SO2R" with 
one transmitter and a separate receiver.  It may well be 
possible to do SO2R with a single dual-receiver transceiver 
if some manufacturer puts their mind to it and does a little 
creative packaging.  

Again, operators have been using multiple "stations" to listen 
for openings on other bands and quickly changing bands for 
more than 40 years.  It has never been, nor should it ever be 
a reason to banish those operators to a separate category any 
more than those who have monoband antennas and multiple towers 
should be banished to a separate category. 

SO2R is to the multiple stations of the 60s and early 70s 
as digital signal processing (MMTTY, MixW, RTTYrite, etc.) 
is to the vacuum tube TU and the model 15.  Lead, follow or 
get out of the way.  
 
Calls for a separate SO2R class are nothing more than "I don't 
want 'their kind' in 'my' class."  It is an emotional argument. 
There is no more valid, rational, justification for a separate 
entry class for SO2R than there would be justification for a 
separate entry class for anyone with an Icom transceiver or for 
a separate entry class for anyone who has spent more than $1000 
to build his station.  

If you want to "level the playing field" do it by applying 
a 10 minute rule to ALL single operator classes - see how 
popular that is!  If you want to "level the playing field" 
put any operator with an antenna more than 50 feet high 
and which contains elements totaling more than 1/2 wave in 
a separate entry class. 

Any argument for separate entry classes based on operating 
style (technique) is simply a case of class warfare - the 
have nots vs. the haves and stinks of 1960's America or 
1930's Germany. 

Now, grow up and get over yourself. 


     

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Turner [mailto:dezrat at copper.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Cc: 'Jay Kloss'; 'RTTY Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> 
> 
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:17:52 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv at subich.com> wrote:
> 
> >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)?    
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> Please, Joe! For the ten billionth time, nobody wants you to "eschew"
> any of your skills. We just want them to be in their appropriate
> category. 
> 
> Running an amp is a skill too. Amplifier owners are not "eschewed",
> they are simply placed in their appropriate category. Same with
> Multi/Multi and any other category which gives a significant
> advantage. Nobody wants you to give up your skills... just compete
> against other like-minded folks.
> 
> End of post # ten billion and one. :-)
> 
> Bill W6WRT
> 
>