I agree. You forgot about the SO2V capability in N1MM. That should
comprise a separate category as well. Or how about people with dual receive
capability? Maybe these could be combined into one. ;-)
Seriously. I'm with you on the SO2T category. Many of us are on
residential lots. Mine is an 80 x 60 foot (Even these are becoming scarce
given the size of lots allocated to new construction these days).
My point is that SO2R can help mitigate some of the advantage that the SO2T
folks have. Or maybe that was your point. ;-)
73 - Guy, N7ZG
>From: "Leigh S. Jones, KR6X" <kr6x@kr6x.com>
>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2T vs. SO1T
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:36:50 -0700
>
>I've been hearing such a just lot lately about how two tower stations have
>such a big advantage over single tower stations that I just had to speak up
>on the subject. Please try to follow me in the discussion below and try to
>read between the lines. Let's not get lost in discussions of unimportant
>subjects here and overlook the best content on the list, namely
>unscrupulous
>operators running SO2T just to increase their scores and beat those who are
>running the more honorable SO1T category.
>
>Now, I realize that these posts could be serious comparisons between the
>value of investing in one new piece of hardware vs. another new piece of
>hardware for the contester's shack -- a sort of Elmer activity. That angle
>is all well and good. I just want to make sure that the word gets out on
>two-tower cheaters so everyone knows that the only honorable way to operate
>is the way that I personally operate and that all the high scorer's scores
>that beat me by running two towers should be discounted or published with a
>footnote that says "cheater".
>
>Lets get this straight. This is serious. I think that the only way to
>deal
>with this subject is to keep bringing it up over and over again until I get
>my way with the contest sponsors. My property has only got room for one
>tower, so I really need this. I'm glad to hear that there are others who
>agree with me on this, at least three or more.
>
>Here's the plan. All those running one tower need to send about four
>e-mails per week to the list emphasizing that anyone with two towers should
>be placed into the "ignore this score" category. Keep bringing up the
>"ignore this score" category by its SO2T name until every contester has
>heard SO2T so many times that they think it's a legitimate title for a
>cheaters category, like "0NIL" representing a bad QSO or "8KW" representing
>a bad egg. It may help if three or four glib members of the list keep
>harping on the SO2T subject over and over again through several decades
>until everyone that hasn't blocked those senders has quit the list. If
>they
>are offended and off the list then they can't disagree anymore.
>
>Once we're done with SO2T cheaters we will move on to "single operator, two
>section crankups" (SO2S) and "single operator, two cup headsets" (SO2H).
>Soon we'll have those SO2S and SO2H cheaters all categorized so we can move
>on to "single operator, two pencils" (SO2P).
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|