CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Re: Non-Assisted vs. Assisted

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Re: Non-Assisted vs. Assisted
From: Wayne Kline <w3ea@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:21:58 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
My .02   Living in the Shadow of the Frankford Radio Club, and being accustomed 
to the 2 meter Dx announcement system in place in the 70's and then the Packet 
Cluster ( Had a 2 meter and 450 MHZ pacclus At W3EA ) We also had a automated  
female voice announcing DX  over 2 meter FM derived from packet spots.    So it 
did not take a  Sherlock Holmes to figure  out the station monitoring Packet or 
2 Meter FM  by showing up in the Packet Pile up's.  Today in age with RBN  and 
world wide telnet  Cw Skimmer and SDR radios  with pan adaptors and  24" 
Monitors able to visually scan the entire band at one glance, have put tools  
for both the SO and the SOA  creating  a  difficult task  to  observe a pattern 
of cheating.  Cheating. you could write a  book  and  or have at least a full 
week of Dr. Phil's Shows dedicated to there low self esteem excuses.  But IMHO  
the SO  - HP  LP or  QRP should not be diluted by by lifting the assisted 
category.   There  is the  embrace technology  cro
 wd and  there is the  Purest  who see Single Operator as  the  Man ( or women) 
against the  spectrum .     So it becomes a simple  solution with the addition 
of assisted a category.    Wayne W3EA                                           
   
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>