[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 23

Sat Sep 15 23:31:15 EDT 2007

I wasn't really going to enter this fray but I can't help it. I'm not a contester and probably shouldn't even be posting here. I just like RTTY. ?I have been a ham for almost 45 years but clearly still have a lot to learn.

It's been my observation that there are few, if any, contesters that want a level playing field. Who would? Everything we buy, everything we do is in hopes of "gaining an edge" - to un-level the playing field, so to speak. Most would agree that?by it's very nature, adding a second rig is an advantage - at least when one becomes competent in the use of 2 rigs in a contest environment.

In college football, teams compete generally within their own divisions - divisions that were established in attempt to "level the playing field" (pardon the pun) i.e. schools with similar financial resources and populations. That too is not a perfect system.

I hate to beat the sports analogy to death, but take a look a pro baseball, specifically the NY Yankees. Old George Steinbrenner has, for years, put together arguablly the finest teams that money could buy. Teams from the smaller markets are significantly disadvantaged when compared to the fiscal resources available to the Yankees. No, the Yankees don't always win the pennant - but often they do. It usually makes for some interesting baseball. Coincidentally, whenever there is talk about revenue sharing or any other such attempt to make things more "fair" it is Steinbrenner that screams and whines the loudest. It is his "God-given " right to spend millions of dollars more?to crush the competition, no matter how disadvantaged they may be.?Oh yeah, not unlike contesting, the Yankees are roundly loved or hated!

It's not for me to say what's?right or wrong, or what ought to be or ought not be - as I said, I don't contest and don't have a dog in this race. I do have a question, though. If it's no big deal, if it really isn't that big an advantage, if if doesn't really matter, etc., then why are the SO2R types so vocal, emotional and vehemently opposed to competing in their own seperate class? I don't get it. It kind of reminds me of pistol shooters in one age bracket wanting to be included in the old timers age bracket and the bragging that they beat the old timers and won! Or perhaps being a marathon runner and bragging because you beat the seniors and guys in wheel chairs. Actually, a lot of contesting seems that way to me, but that's the beauty of ham radio, there's something for everyone and if you don't like one aspect of it, you can always change to left-handed straight-key?CW moonbounce.

Vy 73 to all - no matter how many radios you operate,
Bill KD5XN

-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-request at contesting.com
To: rtty at contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 4:36 pm
Subject: RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 23

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 (Bill Turner)
   2. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (John Fleming)
   3. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
   4. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
   5. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Bill Turner)
   6. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Kok Chen)
   7. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Kok Chen)
   8. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
   9. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Shelby Summerville)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:04:28 -0700
From: Bill Turner <dezrat at copper.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: rtty at contesting.com
Message-ID: <if0oe39igd4i935j9209d3imefovtbd17c at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:38:33 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
<w4tv at subich.com> wrote:

>This jihad against SO2R is nothing more than I don't like it 
>so I don't want it in MY neighborhood.     

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
it in its own category.

Bill W6WRT

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:34:26 -0400
From: "John Fleming" <john at wa9als.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <005201c7f7b6$48c9c600$0201a8c0 at wa9als>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=original

> To me, it's like high power vs low power: You can choose either one,
> have a good time and compete against those similarly equipped. IMO,
> SO2R gives a similar advantage and therefore should be classed
> similarly.
>
> Bill W6WRT

Everyone seems to avoid directly answering the question, "Then what about 
antennas etc?"  Any knowledgeable ham would have to admit that antennas are 
more important than power, yet we have a power category and not an antenna 
category.  (That's probably because rules are more easily made for power 
than for antennas.)

Every time someone figures out an honest way to gain an advantage, you just 
can't strap them into their own category.  If you could do that, there would 
be no more "sport of contesting".

If you don't like the rules, then complain to the contest sponsors.  The 
sour grapes here only serves to drive out potential new contesters, and 
heaven help us, new/younger people who join the reflector.  The real sport 
should be RTTY operating - not who can argue/complain the best.

73 - John, WA9ALS

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat at copper.net>
Cc: 'RTTY Reflector' <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c7f7b8$ec29bd30$0400000a at laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

> 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
> 
> 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat at copper.net>, <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <003001c7f7b8$ec99e420$0400000a at laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

> You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
> the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
> it in its own category.

Sure, Bill.  You might as well say, "I don't have anything against 
blacks or Jews, I just don't want THEM in MY neighborhood." 

As Mike pointed out, this is the unlimited SO category - the premiere 
category of any contest.  Pushing two radio operators out of that 
category because of their operating technique is like saying left-
handed operators need to be in a separate category because many of 
them can send with their right hand and write with their left hand. 

when you start discriminating based entirely on OPERATING TECHNIQUE 
you have crossed the line.    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:04 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> 
> 
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:38:33 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv at subich.com> wrote:
> 
> >This jihad against SO2R is nothing more than I don't like it 
> >so I don't want it in MY neighborhood.     
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
> the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
> it in its own category.
> 
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
> 

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:54:59 -0700
From: Bill Turner <dezrat at copper.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <og3oe31al0k2slcl94pij8rg6mnn1nnogj at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:34:26 -0400, "John Fleming" <john at wa9als.com>
wrote:

>If you don't like the rules, then complain to the contest sponsors. 

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

That's what we are doing. Contest sponsors read these posts.

Bill W6WRT

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:18:30 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <C3DFB316-7FC3-4537-A154-A91ECF0D178F at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On Sep 15, 2007, at 9/15    9:34 AM, John Fleming wrote:

> Everyone seems to avoid directly answering the question, "Then what  
> about
> antennas etc?"  Any knowledgeable ham would have to admit that  
> antennas are
> more important than power, yet we have a power category and not an  
> antenna
> category.

I think John has hit the nail on the head.

Even though it is seldom that people have the 10 dB gain over an  
average antenna as they do running an amplifier, antennas help not  
just in the transmit direction but also in the receive direction --  
what an amplifier cannot buy you.  With RTTY, an extra 2 dB of  
directivity could mean the difference of pulling out an exchange and  
not pulling out an exchange.

> (That's probably because rules are more easily made for power
> than for antennas.)

Using EIRP instead of output power would be a good start.  It would  
incorporate both power and antenna gain into a single rule.  However  
it will still not account for take off angles between high and low  
antennas, which is arguably more important than just a raw "gain"  
number when DX is concerned.

Anyhow, I don't have a dog in this hunt.  I seldom even log the  
stations that I work in a contest anymore.  I just occasionally work  
people for fun when I tune across a contest.

73
Chen, W7AY

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:25:58 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <10A8233E-6C5A-45AE-B557-17D0A38D2C96 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Since people are so opposed to an SO2R category, perhaps what should  
be created instead is an SO1R category, eh?  Let the SO2R guys  
operate in the so called Unlimited SO category.

A rose by any name...  :-) :-)

73
Chen, W7AY

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:24:55 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat at copper.net>, <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <003301c7f7bd$56140260$0400000a at laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

> AA5AU has also commented that with SO2R, his score improved about 40%
> above his SO1R score. 

And this proves what?  If an operator improves his CW technique by 
learning to copy at 30 WPM instead of 8 WPM, his score will go up 
by 40% (or more).  

You are trying to create separate entry classes based on nothing more 
than operating technique (call it skill).  That's not the way it has 
ever been done in radio sport. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:18 AM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> 
> 
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:47:12 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv at subich.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> AA5AU has also commented that with SO2R, his score improved about 40%
> above his SO1R score. That is a comparable advantage to HP vs LP, and
> like HP vs LP, deserves its own category. 
> 
> The playing field can not be made perfectly level, but we should try
> any reasonable means to make it so. NOT doing so reduces competition
> and ultimately will cause contesters to give it up and go somewhere
> else to have fun.
> 
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
> 

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:35:31 -0400
From: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww at arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <001801c7f7e0$576832d0$6401a8c0 at acer6e395d0925>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=original

Kok Chen wrote: "Since people are so opposed to an SO2R category, perhaps 
what should
be created instead is an SO1R category, eh?"

Again, and again...you have it wrong!!!!! I don't know of anyone that is 
"opposed" to SO2R, and they already have their own category...SO! The 
creation of a SO1R category, has been proposed, from the start!

C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

End of RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 23
************************************

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com