Topband: JA's came in droves today on 160

[Jamie WW3S]

I like the boating reference.....I myself use fishing.....theres all 
kinds of fishing.....salt water, freshwater, etc....some guys like to 
just fish on the weekend (ragchewers?), maybe just fish with old friends 
or family once in a while......some folks like to tie their own flies ( 
homebrewers?)....some folks like big fish on lite lines 
(qrpers?)....some folks like trout in the streams, some like bass in the 
lake.....some are "pro" fisherman, big rigs, enormous HP motors, all the 
fancy gadgets (contesters?), some catch and release, some fish to 
eat.......but in the end, its all fishing, and they dont bitch about 
each other.....

------ Original Message ------
From: "GEORGE WALLNER" <aa7jv at atlanticbb.net>
To: "topband at contesting.com" <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: 2/1/2019 10:11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: JA's came in droves today on 160

>Terry makes the crucial point: FT8 (and the likes) should be in a different class. Other hobbies do that: sailboats don't race against power boats, etc.
>I don't think that there is much point arguing whether FT8 is Amateur Radio or not. It is. I don't care for it, but I have been involved with enough FT8 efforts to see that it has many aspects of what we call Amateur Radio. FT8 has its place by attracting a different cohort of operators. It is also true that it requires less effort, but that suits some people just fine. (Many FT8 operators watch movies, are on the Internet, etc., while working FT8.)
>It is lamentable that often when the CW segment is empty, the FT8 segment is busy. But that is not the fault of the FT8 operators. Regardless, CW is alive and well: witness the CQ160 CW contest. It was super busy (most of the time) and far more exciting than FT8 ever will be.
>
>73,
>George,
>AA7JV/C6AGU
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:59:06 -0800 (PST)
>  terry burge <ki7m at comcast.net> wrote:
>>JWIT,
>>
>>Or to put it, just what I think. Paul's description of how WSPR and FT8 can/is automatic points out what a lot of us object to. It would not be bad IF they had a separate class for DXCC for the digital modes just because it can be like 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Some of us have work over 40 years to build a great DXCC total. Now FT8 comes along and apparently you can do it in a few weeks. We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle but when it gets good see how long it takes to get a DXCC with FT8. People who have been around for a few cycles know the 'work the world with a wet noodle' expression can be valid up on 10 meters. So imagine what FT8 can do. Can that be compared to working them yourself by hand with CW or phone?
>>
>>It just should not be considered when competing with CW or SSB. It is too easy. And automating contacts just threatens to destroy the whole basis of DXCC and perhaps DX'ing. Make a different class for the digital modes on DXCC at try to keep the challenge in ham radio.
>>That's my feeling anyhow.
>>Terry
>>KI7M
>>>On January 31, 2019 at 1:37 PM MICHAEL ST ANGELO <mstangelo at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't understand why there is such uproar for FT-8 while some of those people use DX Spotting while operating. Both are computer assisted applications. we've been doing spotting for years.
>>>It's up to the user. I prefer CW but may use FT-8 in he future. The genie is out of the bottle; you can't put it back in
>>>
>>>My $0.02
>>>
>>>Mike N2MS
>>>_________________
>>>Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>_________________
>>Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
>_________________
>Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector