Actually, I think doing away with power categories makes a lot of sense. As
mentioned there are many other factors that make for an un-level playing field
and they are usually ignored for the sake of scoring the contest. Perhaps the
best way to have categories would be use of estimated value of the station, for
example: $100 -1000, $1001 - 5000, $5001-10,000 and $10,001 +. That sort of
levels things out and lets the player decide what features make sense for his
investments. Just an idea...
Bill N3XL
________________________________
From: "rtty-request@contesting.com" <rtty-request@contesting.com>
To: rtty@contesting.com
Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 11:30:31 AM
Subject: RTTY Digest, Vol 90, Issue 36
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rtty-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Cheating (Joe Subich, W4TV)
2. Re: cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
3. Re: Cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
4. Re: Cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
5. Re: Cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
6. Re: Cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
7. Cheating (Phil Sussman)
8. Cheating (Thomas F. Giella NZ4O)
9. Re: Cheating (Jerry Flanders)
10. Re: Cheating (James Colville)
11. SO2R in it purest form (Rick Ruhl)
12. Re: Cheating (Bill, W6WRT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:26:46 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <4C171D26.6050204@subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> It is about being able to listen on another frequency WHILE
> TRANSMITTING, something a single radio op can not do. It
> effectively doubles your operating time,
Let's look at other things that reduce the what an operator has
not do ...
1) computer logging - no more writing in the log while trying
to work a station
2) computer generated CW, computer generated voice - allows
one to grab a drink/snack/listen on another receiver while
"working" a station
3) automatic antenna switching
4) automatically tuned amplifiers
5) broadband (no-tune-up) transceivers
6) automatic rotor controls
All effectively increase operating time ... should they be grounds
for separate categories? Oh yes, every one of those items are part
of successful SO2R operations and have made SO2R easier than it was
30+ years ago.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
>
> REPLY:
>
> AS usual Joe clouds the issue. SO2R is not about changing bands
> rapidly. Anyone can flip a switch rapidly. It is about being able to
> listen on another frequency WHILE TRANSMITTING, something a single
> radio op can not do. It effectively doubles your operating time, a
> HUGE advantage, much like having an amplifier or spotting assistance
> or multiple operators. They have their own class and SO2R should too.
> Joe has had this explained to him a zillion times but there is some
> kind of mental block operating there. It's like arguing with a rock.
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:18:07 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] cheating
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <g0de16hj9rq62sj68r1b8c29nk45mj4hk8@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:57:52 -0600, "W0MU Mike Fatchett"
<w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>So I guess operators should be judged and put in their own categories
>because they are better than you? Really?
REPLY:
Operators that are better than me already have their own category.
They're called "winners". :-)
I don't mind (too much) being beat by someone who is simply better at
contesting than I am. I do mind it when he uses hardware (second
radio) to gain an advantage. That's why, when I run high power, I
don't compare my scores against low power ops. That would be unfair,
just like two radios against one is unfair.
I run HP because I am impatient, not because I want to run up a high
score. If others have more patience, good for them. I don't expect
their scores to be in the same category with mine because it simply
would not be fair to them. I do not want to outscore someone because I
have an amp and they don't. Same with two radios vs one. No one should
have to have an amp to be competitive and the same with a second
radio. Thaa's why sports have categories to begin with - competing on
a level playing field to the greatest extent possible.
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:25:04 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <tude169r6ofn1o04c92ohjunj2go58akss@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:17:34 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
<lists@subich.com> wrote:
>it doesn't change the fact that you are simply
>an anti-SO2R bigot.
REPLY:
Get a new record, Joe. That old one is cracked.
I have never been against SO2R and you know it. I respect SO2R ops
just as I respect the multi-multi stations, but that doesn't mean I
want to play that way. Separate categories, Joe, not outlawing. That's
all I have ever asked from day one.
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:38:37 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <voee165mkisn4tja961irh4f0jio3317sf@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:30:23 -0400, "Eric - VE3GSI"
<ve3gsi@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Personally Bill, I find you asking as to which products Joe sells a darn
>right hit below the belt. I have seen Joe on this reflector and countless
>other reflectors never pushing his wares. In fact a good many times I have
>seen Joe helping us Hams with products he has absolutely no monetary
>interest in, AKA the competition.
REPLY:
I agree that Joe is helpful in a lot of ways, especially on the DXLabs
reflector and I respect him for that. But... anyone who is making
money from products designed to enhance SO2R should disclose that fact
when advocating SO2R. Ethics 101.
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:52:33 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <gdfe169srug09uv77mp1m9mvr458d6r9e1@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:29:50 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
<lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
>As usual it is Bill that is trying to cloud the issue. SO2R
>does not even require two transceivers - it only takes the ability
>to listen on one band while transmitting on another and change
>bands rapidly on one transmitter.
REPLY:
Say what? SO2R does NOT require two transceivers???
A single transceiver can NOT transmit on one band while SIMULTANEOUSLY
listening on another, i.e., having both the TX and RX operate at the
same time.
How do you have a rational debate with someone who makes statements
like that?
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:02:02 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <rvfe16ph3fbcg7najkm6e9l2bfga9v41gb@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:54:10 -0600, "W0MU Mike Fatchett"
<w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>
>Where do you draw the line? My radio has two separate receivers and two
>vfo's. One radio.
REPLY:
No, it is one box with two radios inside. You draw the line when your
equipment is capable of receiving at the same time as it is
transmitting. This allows you to hunt for multipliers on band A while
calling CQ on band B. You are able to listen during 100% of the
contest period, something a conventional transceiver can not do. It is
a huge advantage and that's why guys do it.
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:22:45 -0400
From: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>
Subject: [RTTY] Cheating
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <1276597365.4c17547564a29@webmail.pactor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I've been following this thread and both sides make good points.
My contention, which is obvious, is that no matter the category of
entry -- the entry of a peanut whistle station is frustrating. But
the mentality of the operator(s) striving in contests has moved
into the range of obsessive for some. That's even worse!
Many years ago I was an avid contester; however, with the advent of
'checking the log' of every single contact and disqualifying contacts
because they weren't in more than one or two logs literally drove me
away. (Little guys need not bother, there's no little guy category, eh?)
So, if I make one or two contacts in a contest don't expect any
points from me. I received complaints (via email) that I was detracting
from their 'rate' if I didn't send in my log, in ADIF no less! Yep,
obsessive. It just wasn't fun any more.
Now I watch from the sidelines as stations are built, at a fantastic cost,
to achieve nothing more than the highest score. And contenders wrestle over
whether it takes only one multifunction radio or a dozen to drive off the
smaller, less equipped (eg. can't afford the price) operators.
Look for me on 17m RTTY during a contest, just chatting -- unless the
contest gurus mandate that operating on 17m becomes necessary to generate
even higher contest scores.
My opinion, end of soap box!
73 de Phil - N8PS
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:07:22 -0400
From: "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O" <nz4o@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: [RTTY] Cheating
To: "RTTY COL" <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <B68DFC9A74FC4A2F8BCEF2708739D47E@YOUR5BFDF7BC50>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
The ugly American has come out in this thread. Can we end it please?
73 & GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Lakeland, FL, USA
nz4o@tampabay.rr.com
PODXS 070 Club #349
Feld Hell Club #141
30 Meter Digital Group #691
Digital Modes Club #1243
WARC Bands Century Club #20
NZ4O Amateur & SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:08:09 -0400
From: Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: dezrat1242@yahoo.com,rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <20100615131312.CB33E1B607F2@dayton.contesting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 04:52 AM 6/15/2010, Bill, W6WRT wrote:
>ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:29:50 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
><lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >As usual it is Bill that is trying to cloud the issue. SO2R
> >does not even require two transceivers - it only takes the ability
> >to listen on one band while transmitting on another and change
> >bands rapidly on one transmitter.
>
>REPLY:
>
>Say what? SO2R does NOT require two transceivers???
>
>A single transceiver can NOT transmit on one band while SIMULTANEOUSLY
>listening on another, i.e., having both the TX and RX operate at the
>same time.
Actually, simultaneous duplex receive is one of the major features of
the Flex 5000, Bill. See W9OY's SO2R (single transceiver) writeup at
http://w9oy-sdr.blogspot.com/2009/03/so2r-part-deux.html
Jerry W4UK
>How do you have a rational debate with someone who makes statements
>like that?
>
>73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:13:08 -0700
From: James Colville <jimw7ry@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O" <nz4o@tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: RTTY COL <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimkX39mPrH9FlcfQvXAcnGHmviMDjKN_gr8Ci--@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Ugly American?
Jim W7RY
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O <nz4o@tampabay.rr.com
> wrote:
> The ugly American has come out in this thread. Can we end it please?
>
> 73 & GUD DX,
> Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
> Lakeland, FL, USA
> nz4o@tampabay.rr.com
>
> PODXS 070 Club #349
> Feld Hell Club #141
> 30 Meter Digital Group #691
> Digital Modes Club #1243
> WARC Bands Century Club #20
>
> NZ4O Amateur & SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:42:50 -0500
From: "Rick Ruhl" <ricker@cssincorp.com>
Subject: [RTTY] SO2R in it purest form
To: "'RTTY COL'" <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <dd5a01cb0c99$08a08be0$19e1a3a0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
One Operator
Two Radios
Two Antennas
Two Strait Keys.
Can said Op receive on both radios at the same time? Yes
Can said Op XMIT on one radio and REC on the other at the same time? Yes
Can said Op XMIT on both radios at the same time? Yes
Pure SO2R without a computer, a switch or anything but him and 2 radios :)
Rick - W4PC
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:30:19 -0700
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Cheating
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <r27f165f642smicrhd4781mp456454fpov@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:13:24 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
<lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
>There is no justification for treating one set of SINGLE OPERATORS any
>differently from any others based only on the hardware located in their
>stations.
REPLY:
So, would you do away with power classes for single ops?
73, Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
End of RTTY Digest, Vol 90, Issue 36
************************************
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|