[Skimmertalk] Category Definitions

Pete Smith n4zr at contesting.com
Wed Jul 2 08:26:23 EDT 2008

At 08:08 AM 7/2/2008, Ted Bryant wrote:
>These are some interesting concepts for categories.
>But, instead of defining the categories in terms of what hardware/software 
>is or is not allowed, can
>the categories be defined completely by what functions the operator is 
>allowed/not allowed to
>perform along with what information and from which sources he is allowed 
>to use?
>If this is not done, inevitably there will be new hardware or software 
>developed which falls outside
>the category description and we'll be right back here again.
>73, Ted W4NZ

I swore I wasn't going to get into this discussion again, but what Ted said 
makes the best kind of sense.  So long as you have a category that allows 
decoders, so that nobody is excluded, what would be wrong with defining the 
"pure" CW single-op in terms like "decoding of CW must be done solely by 
the operator"?  To me that's a little like "racing sailboats must be 
propelled solely by the wind."

I'm a little concerned that by trying to ban specific technologies, 
including ones that are attractive to the current crop of non-CW licensees, 
we run the risk of being seen as Luddite OFs.  On the other hand, so long 
as there's room for both sailboats and motorboats in our ocean, y'all come!

73, Pete N4ZR

More information about the Skimmertalk mailing list