[UK-CONTEST] RadCom letters

[Dave Lawley]

I always enjoy your contributions to any debate on this reflector Lee, 
always well-considered and sensible. The only part I'd take issue with 
is "Maybe Steve G3ZVW could devote a future RadCom column to it - 
debunking some myths especially for the non-contester?" because I'm sure 
the letter-writers positively don't read Steve's column! That's why I 
think some letters giving a different point of view are called for.

Yes, the Editor has definitely let us down and I think we need to test 
her impartiality.

73, Dave G4BUO

Lee Volante wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would have hoped that the second round of letters in the August RadCom 
> would not have been published.  The initial letter was stating a point of 
> view, and it was published because invariably there are other letters 
> submitted stating a very similar point of view.  What would have been far 
> preferable is that the Contest Committee Chairman, or the Director for Sport 
> Radio added a rebuttal similar to Chris' comments below in the July RadCom, 
> and that would have been the end of the story, at least for a while.  As 
> Roger G3SXW mentions, we go around this loop periodically, and there are 
> always more letters printed stating the hyperbole of 'contesters ruined ham 
> radio' rather than the more measured comments which a neutral party might 
> agree are closer to the truth.
> 
> I'm very disappointed with the RadCom Editor for not heeding those earlier 
> comments and then publishing further letters. This is not what I expect from 
> my 'service led' RSGB. There are other recent examples of balanced replies 
> about M5FUN's recent article, or the comments about 3 feet high dipoles etc. 
> in the Letters pages to draw discussion to a close, but in our case we've 
> been let down (again.)  RSGB is keen to promote positive aspects of amateur 
> radio - RadCom front covers, pictures on the website etc. showcase what we 
> get up to in the hobby, but the Letters pages do bring everything back down 
> to earth by largely being about complaints. There's a divide of needing to 
> publish the views of the membership that have bothered to right in, against 
> the impression that those letters will give to the thousands of members 
> reading them.
> 
> It's almost certain we would not change the minds of the "anti-contester 
> brigade" with any replies, but it is important as Dave mentions that a 
> balanced viewpoint is put across. This will take more space than the Letters 
> Page would allow.  Maybe Steve G3ZVW could devote a future RadCom column to 
> it - debunking some myths especially for the non-contester?   It's time for 
> more facts and fewer rants to be published.  We could mention to the RadCom 
> letter writers to come to Contest University and find out what it's really 
> all about, but I doubt that would happen.
> 
> Any published reply needs to be done carefully though - I'm wary of the 'use 
> the WARC bands' argument as often the propagation on some of the other bands 
> isn't available elsewhere - it needs to be spelled out that during the vast 
> majority of contest weekends, very few contests will completely occupy the 
> spectrum. So if you want to use 80, 40 or 20, most of the time there are 
> ample clear frequencies there.  VHF / UHF overcrowding is not a problem for 
> these contests. Contesters represent only a small proportion of the amateur 
> population, but a large proportion of those active and on-air. Contesting 
> and contesters are by no means perfect, and there are bad eggs in every area 
> of interest that makes up amateur radio, but I'm proud of being a contester 
> for many reasons the RadCom letter writers probably won't be aware of.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Lee G0MTN