[VHFcontesting] "CQ On The Internet", Spin Doctors, and fair debate

[George Fremin III]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 05:01:27PM -0500, Les Rayburn wrote:

> My point is that being active in one VHF contest per year, or even fewer 
> hardly compares to the contributions of some on the other side of this 
> debate. The opposition to some form of an assisted category is 
> passionate and vocal, but most of that seems to come from people who are 
> not otherwise active.

I am sorry that I am not active enough for you to think my experience
and views matter.

The other VHF contests of the year are much harder for me to carve out
a weekend for - between kids and other non radio activities I can not
do those contests very often.  But I do really enjoy operating the
VHF/UHF bands.  And on a cost per QSO basis my ham radio budget is
very skewed on the bands above 50 mhz.  I spend more time thinking
about how to make my VHF station better than I do about HF. If I only
had the funds to do it - I know I could build an amazing station.

> If you study the history of the VHF bands, you'll find that prearranged 
> schedules during both contests and everyday operation are nothing new. 

I know this history.

> with success to coordinate contacts. Some of the most competitive 
> stations invest a good deal of time in arranging skeds prior to 
> contests, and trying to drum up activity. 

I am saying that it is possible to turn in contest scores without 
doing these things.  It is even possible to have fun doing 
the contests without these things. 

> The problem with repeating a falsehood over and over is that it becomes 
> accepted as truth. Especially if it comes from someone who is respected.

Please tell me where I have stated something that is false.

I will be glad to be corrected if I made a false statement or 
if I have said something that is wrong due to not understanding
the facts. 

> post announcements of digital operation. It is not to allow someone to 
> "call CQ" on the Intenet. That is a distortion of the proposal, designed 
> to encite an emotiional response.

No, the reason I called it a CQ is to show that it is indeed 
a solicitation (just a like a CQ on the radio) for contacts. 
I think it is important to make that clear.  One of the problems
with this topic is that we throw around terms like "spots" "spotting"
"announcements" and the like but I am not sure that everyone is on
the same page as to what those mean.

Is an "announcement" made one time before the contest - like we see
on this list that I going to be on in the contest doing X?

Or is is "announcing" every 5 seconds in some chat room or many 
chat rooms or on the DX spotting system that I am on XX freq 
now?

I wanted to point out that the "announcements" that K5QE is talking
about are of the very frequent "I am calling on XX freq" type.

And when I thought about it - I realized that it was really 
pretty much like calling CQ.  And if that is what most people 
want to happen during VHF contests. Then I guess we should do 
it but they need to understand what it is they are supporting.

> 
> We have practical experience with Marshall's proposal in both the CQ VHF 
> and SVHFS Sprints. In both cases, nothing horrible happened. Crisis 
> averted. Earth saved.

Great.  

I will again say that not all contests have the have the same rules.
I think it is great that contests are not all the same - don't have
the same conditions etc. 

-- 
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii at kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr