RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint

To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat@copper.net>,"'RTTY Reflector'" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:57:12 -0400
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
> please remember that from day one, nobody has proposed outlawing 
> SO2R, only that it should be classed as a separate category from 
> SO1R.

When sponsors start enforcing separate categories for antennas with 
more than one half wavelength in any dimension and antenna supports
taller than 50 feet, it will be time to consider a separate category 
for SO2R.  When sponsors propose separate categories for computer 
logging, memory keyers, stored voice keyers, and separate receivers 
(including dual receiver transceivers), it will be time to propose 
a separate category for SO2R.  Until then there is absolutely no 
justification for singling out one technique for making an operator 
more efficient and ignoring the others.  

This "separate category for SO2R" is complete crap ... SO2R has been 
used in one form or another for at least 40 years just like automatic 
devices for sending CW or repeating voice messages.  Technology has 
made SO2R easier to implement, easier to use, and more available to  
a larger number of operators just as it has brought memory keyers, 
digital voice keyers, and computer logging into the mainstream.  By 
the way, the same technology has also brought RTTY into the mainstream 
and made it far easier for the average amateur to participate in RTTY 
contesting.  Should there be a separate category for every one *NOT* 
using a model 15 and vacuum tube terminal unit?  

Lead, follow, or get out of the way but don't stand in the way of 
technology. 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: RTTY Reflector
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fw: [CQ-Contest] SO2R in the CW Sprint
> 
> 
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:00:55 -0400, "Shelby Summerville"
> <k4ww@arrl.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Just thought those that don't subscribe to the contesting 
> reflector, would 
> >find this interesting reading? Has someone, other that the "ignored" 
> >majority of contesters, finally understood what has been 
> said for several 
> >years?
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> Before the catfight begins, please remember that from day one, nobody
> has proposed outlawing SO2R, only that it should be classed as a
> separate category from SO1R. There is at least one contest which
> already does this - the XE RTTY - and I think there is one other which
> I can't recall at the moment.
> 
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

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