[UK-CONTEST] 80m CC's and the data leg

[Don Field]

Chris

I think you are missing my point. When I came into radio, it wasn't to show
the world how clever I was at decoding CW by ear (just as well - I was
rubbish!). I joined the hobby because I thought communicating via the ether
had a certain magic. I still do. And, yes, I enjoy reading about amateur TV
in the 50s, or even the 25th anniversary of CB (believe it or not!). I
thinlk, for some, competition has become an end in itself (I won't enter a
contest unless I can win it ..) and the enjoyment has somehow gone. I think
amateur TV is a great branch of the hobby - if I ever find time I will have
a play - and it's ALL on a screen! There's room for everyone (I hope, or
we're DOOMED as Corporal Jones would say).

Don G3XTT

On 11/17/06, G3SJJ <g3sjj at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> I can understand what you are implying Don, but what those of us who are
> complaining are concerned about is the slow but quickening move from
> actually listening to the station to its display on a screen. You
> mention improvements in technology, TRF, Superhet etc. Yes, but all the
> time the signal in the end had to be decoded by human ears. Whilst
> typing this, I am listening to 5A7A on 160m, note not watching it on a
> screen!
>
> I recall just five or so years ago helping a local group at SSB FD, they
> were OK running States on 15m because the band was wide and very little
> QRM, move to 20m and the rate dropped. 80 and 40 overnight, forget it.
> They couldn't H E A R.
>
> I take your point though. I mean, even recently in Radcom we had an
> article about TV cameras in the 1950 and 60s. State of the art, eh?
>
> (Again, not meant abusively)
>
> 73 Chris G3SJJ
>
>
> Don Field wrote:
> > "You send info and you H E A R information. That to us is what amateur
> > radio is all about."
> >
> > Well, actually Chris, if you go back to the early days, amateur radio
> was
> > all about RADIO (well, WIRELESS if you must). It was about technology.
> > Moving from a straight receiver to a TRF, then a Superhet, etc. On-air
> QSOs
> > were about validating that new bit of technology. While, emotionally, I
> > sympathise with your view and that of G4BUO, at the logical level it is
> > nonesense to try and draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say that
> > technological developments stop at that point. Or, indeed, to apply a
> filter
> > to which technological developments are allowed - "Roofing filters good,
> PSK
> > software bad" or whatever. This simply doesn't make sense at all, and is
> > guaranteed to put off those youngsters who find this stuff compelling.
> > Surely amateur radio is a broad church of all who enjoy the magic of
> > communicating without wires - I am just as much in awe of copy from the
> moon
> > using WSJT (not that I have done it, but I have seen it done) as I ever
> was
> > at working across town on 80m in my early days. There may be computers
> in
> > the loop, but it's still magic (and, in that example, it opens
> moonbounce to
> > a much larger group of participants than would otherwise be in a
> position to
> > play)!
> >
> > Don G3XTT
> > _______________________________________________
> > UK-Contest mailing list
> > UK-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>