[VHFcontesting] One "Idiot's" Reply - The Real WTX Story

[wbr wf4r]

Here is the problem as I see it:  How do define "in a fair way"?
Let's not "fix" something that is not necessarily broken.
I enjoyed reading N6MU's reply.  I for one have a good appreciation of
what engineering must be done to make an effective roving station.
73, Bill, WF4R

Paul Kiesel wrote:

>As far as I'm concerned, these guys did nothing
>unsportsmanlike. They took advantage of the rules as
>they are written.
>
>The ARRL needs to effectively address the grid
>circling matter in a fair way, but soon.
>
>K7CW
>
>--- "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker at kenharker.com>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:51:07AM -0400,
>>N6MU1 at aol.com wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The only way midwest or west coast rovers can be
>>>      
>>>
>>competitive nationally 
>>    
>>
>>>is to join forces.  WTX is the best area of the
>>>      
>>>
>>country where multiple 
>>    
>>
>>>convergences are readily available close to major
>>>      
>>>
>>highways.  I don't 
>>    
>>
>>>understand the objection to grid circling when
>>>      
>>>
>>there is literally no 
>>    
>>
>>>one else to work. Also, where I go to operate is
>>>      
>>>
>>solely my choice.
>>
>>Here is why grid circling sucks.
>>
>>In order to effectively grid circle, multiple rover
>>stations must be 
>>operating in a highly coordinated manner.  It does
>>not happen by accident.
>>The complexity and coordination of the scheduling
>>involved probably exceeds 
>>the level of planning most multi-operator station
>>put into scheduling their
>>operators.  The point is, it is obvious that
>>grid-cirlcing rovers are really
>>operating ONE contest operation with MULTIPLE
>>stations and callsigns.  When
>>two, three, or four rovers coordinate in the way
>>that you have recently 
>>been doing, it is not two, three, or four separate
>>contest operations - it 
>>is one planned and executed operation that involves
>>two, three, or four 
>>callsigns, mostly just making QSOs with itself.
>>
>>Just as single operator contest efforts are not made
>>to compete with 
>>multioperator contest efforts, single-station
>>contest efforts should not
>>be expected to compete against multi-station contest
>>efforts, and nobody 
>>should be competing against a contest effort that
>>can manufacture an 
>>arbitrary number of QSOs with itself.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>This "idiot" is proud to be part of the group that
>>>      
>>>
>>raised the roving 
>>    
>>
>>>bar this year. If you think designing and building
>>>      
>>>
>>multiple reliable 
>>    
>>
>>>and portable ten-band rover stations including
>>>      
>>>
>>antennas isn't 
>>    
>>
>>>technically challenging, try it. 
>>>      
>>>
>>Just because some technical achievement is
>>challenging, does not mean that
>>your use of that technical achievement demonstrates
>>good sportsmanship.
>>
>>-- 
>>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>>kenharker at kenharker.com
>>http://www.kenharker.com/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>VHFcontesting mailing list
>>VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>
>>    
>>
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>  
>
>
>
>
>		
>_______________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
>http://messenger.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>  
>