That's where the expresion, "Running barefoot" came from...
Sorry about that, Dave, but I cudn't resist.
Dennis, K2SX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Pechie" <kb1h@myeastern.com>
To: <BobK8IA@aol.com>; <w4pa@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
> The idea on a new category for SO2R has really reached the limit on
> "watering" down the competition to the point that there is no competition!
>
> Can we have categories decided by the amount of sleep you get or the
number
> of bathroom visits during the contest?
>
> I wish I was there to verify the story that the oldest member (K1DNW age
97)
> of our local club tells of K1ZND ( now K1ZZ) during Field Day in the
> mid-sixties to have been tuning a second receiver under the operating
table
> with his feet as he was running QSOs on the main twin set up. Yes,
> transceivers were rare. Mohawk and Apache pairs were more common. New
> category, "Using feet for tuning on a second receiver".
>
> The "Best Ops" use what they have the ability or the resources to use.
SO2R
> might put K5ZD on the top but only by the slimmest of margins. If we keep
> creating niches for each style of operating then what happens to the
> competition? Ten stations per operating class? Does it really make sense
to
> keep creating these micro-classifications of competition?
>
> The ARRL and other contest sponsors need to spend time on other ideas to
> increase contest activity rather than trying to make everyone a winner.
> After all, when you spend a few hours on a weekend to jump into the
> competition you're already a winner.
>
> 73 Dick - KB1H
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------------------------------------
> Visit "The Barnstormers Contest Group - NZ1U"
> website http://www.qsl.net/kb1h/
>
> Email: KB1H@arrl.net YCCC--------> http://www.yccc.org/
>
> KB1H DXSpider Node ---------> dxc.kb1h.com port 7300
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobK8IA@aol.com>
> To: <w4pa@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?
>
>
> > In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > w4pa@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Let me make sure I understand you correctly: SO2R operation was
> > > developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> > > years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
> > >
> > > We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> > > practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> > > of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
> > >
> > > Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
> > >
> > > Scott Robbins, W4PA
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Scott;
> >
> > Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
> > evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
> SSers
> > W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
> > technology was just different then.
> >
> > Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
> to
> > able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective
> SO2R
> > thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that
can!
> >
> > 73,Bob K8IA
> > Mesa, Arizona USA
> > near the Superstition Mtns
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|