[UK-CONTEST] CW Technology Debate (CW Skimmer)

[Steve Knowles]

Hear Hear!

I'm not for the Luddites!  As long as the 'Unassisted' category is preserved 
for people like Dave and myself, I think new development should be allowed - 
even encouraged.  If Skimmer turns out to be as good as is claimed it would 
be wrong to suppress it - we just need to define an appropriate category for 
it;  if it's not that good then it will die the death anyway.  Wait and see 
is probably the best plan here.

73

Steve,  G3UFY


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "G3SXW" <g3sxw at btinternet.com>
To: "Dave Lawley" <dave at g4buo.com>; "UK Contest Reflector" 
<uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW Technology Debate (CW Skimmer)


> Dave,
> I don't see your problem.  Let's think of it as 'Operator-driven' as 
> opposed
> to 'Technology-driven'. Those whose satisfaction comes from making 
> software
> work will always do so, and they are very welcome. There's room for all.
> They simply enjoy different challenges.
>
> We just need to create category rules to separate us out. Your position
> would be to ban the technology-driven guys altogether. But your 'Single Op
> Unassisted' category is safe. Contests are already protected from DX 
> Cluster
> by the 'Assisted' category. Surely, Skimmer also makes you 'Assisted'.
>
> And by the way, I agree that this whole issue is exaggerated. The software
> isn't that great in practice and anyway only a small proportion of
> contesters will go for it.
> 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dave Lawley" <dave at g4buo.com>
> To: "UK Contest Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CW Technology Debate (CW Skimmer)
>
>
>> Visit  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest  for
>> several postings refuting the fallacy that to reject Skimmer is to
>> reject all technology.
>>
>> Look at F1 racing - plenty of leading-edge technology there, but for
>> example active suspension and ground effect aerodynamics are banned.
>> Surely it is we, the participants in the sport, who should seek to find
>> a concensus on which technologies are, or are not, appropriate
>> esepecially when there are many who want to apply them to *all*
>> categories.
>>
>> No callsign? No problem with that, though it's pretty easy to obtain one
>> now if you want to. On the other hand if you don't want to get a licence
>> that's fine, but there aren't many SWL contests any more!
>>
>> Dave G4BUO
>>
>>
>> David Barber wrote:
>>> Just interested.
>>>
>>> Do you all restrict yourselves to the use of straight keys?
>>>
>>> Making no use of technology aids such as memory keying, electronic
>>> keyers,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> The technology has its place but how you police its use within the
>>> context
>>> you have all been discussing is, I believe, unanswerable.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> PS.
>>>
>>> Before everyone throws abuse for not including a call sign, I don't have
>>> one!
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>