Having just finished my now-standard last-22-hours of the CW DX test at W3LPL, and seeing all the discussion going on here on the CQ-Contest Reflector (not subscribed; I read it on the Web), I feel l
I really enjoyed this and the post from KR6X. I suggest that anyone who thinks SO2R should be a separate class try an all-out serious SO2R effort in the next contest. Borrow a station if you have to.
Thank you to all who wrote to thank me for putting into words what they had been thinking. To those who misunderstood, let me say that I am not on a campaign to create new categories. I blame myself
_________________________________________________________ Vilified? Nothing could be further from the truth. I respect SO2R operators for their skill and dedication to contesting. The only area of di
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Bill. I feel that if someone develops a skill, a station configuration, or a technical wrinkle which advantages them over lesser prepared participants, t
Wouldn't make a bit of difference, Bill. I could turn my existing "limited" station over to any of several local operators for CQWW (N0AT, K0SR are a couple who come to mind) while I operated the su
And how would this limited WRTC type category account for propagation differences, as the true WRTC does? Anyone who lives in the 9/0/5 black hole can tell you that propagation is everything. 73s Joh
I disagree. Within a given region (state, section, call area, etc.) a "limited" category would eliminate the big variations among the external factors that effect score (e.g., power level, significan
Hans, I agree with you totally about the operator being the determining factor. That is why I oppose having an SO2R category. It is wrong to legislate against a hard-earned technique to benefit those
Maybe, but I seriously don't think so. If you construct a "limited" category, it will almost certainly come to be dominated by a select small handful of "super operator/stations" whose competitive j
_________________________________________________________ For small increments, I agree. Two-radio operation is not a small increment, IMO, much like the difference between LP and HP, and should be c
_________________________________________________________ I notice in all your correspondence that you are focused on winning. I am focused on competition. A casual reader might think that's the same
_________________________________________________________ Well it can't, of course. On the other hand, in the recent CQ WW RTTY contest, I put in a maximum single band effort and came in second in th
Author: Steve Root <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:21:57 +0000
True, but I agree with Ward N0AX that the issue here is recognition. While QST did us a great disservice by curtailing their contest coverage, the Web reporting has allowed vastly improved regional
Steve makes excellent points. The amateur service is a service of "self training", and contesting is an ideal means to that end. It has always been interesting to me that the rules for most contests
I agree with Steve 100%. I don't believe I have said it as well. My suggestion to set up a category defined by antenna height is an attempt to have a clear and simple way to classify what Steve has c
... and I, in view of all the PRB-1 history, would argue that establishing a line below 70 feet we risk giving all the cities that would like to restrict towers a perfect argument for an excessively
Joe, you could have a point there about 40 ft and PRB-1. I just have not way of knowing. Perhaps the lawyers among us have knowledge, or if the idea ever makes it to the CAC maybe the folks up at the
Jim, W0UO/5 suggested: policy of the sponsoring WHOA!!! I disagree...I think Top 10 lists are not only cool, they are highly motivational. Case in point. After 30 years of QRT from HF/DX/Contesting,
Eric, I assert two things. First, top ten lists, etc are not provided for in the rules. That much is fact. Provision for these kinds of listings exist only in the editorial policy of the sponsoring o