> In other words... More than one operator, multi op. More than one
> radio, multi radio.
No - that's the point it is not multi-operator. It is *one*
operator alternating between two radios.
While the technique of listening to multiple radios at the
same time, even listening on one radio while transmitting
on a second radio (on a different band) may provide some
tactical advantage, it is still *ONE* operator performing
all of the functions associated with making the QSO.
If you want to eliminate what some most object to about SO2R
- e.g., holding two frequencies ("dual CQs"), etc. - convince
contest sponsors to adopt band change limits. Don't segregate
one group of single operator based on their (legal) operating
tactics.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 6/17/2010 11:13 AM, Jim W7RY wrote:
> In other words... More than one operator, multi op. More than one radio,
> multi radio.
>
> If you want to look for mults on the second receiver of that ONE radio,
> fine. You have to change bands to work the mult. That too is fine.
>
>
> Simple.
>
> 73
> Jim W7RY
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jim W7RY<jimw7ry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok Joe.... Then is 2OSR not the same as single operator? No, their multi
>> operator. No matter how many ops they have, their simply multi operator.
>> (Not talking about multi 2 or multi multi)
>>
>>
>> So Joe... Tell me again why SO2R is does not have an advantage over a
>> single radio? And why they should not be a separate class?
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Jim W7RY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV<lists@subich.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> My replies to Bill were only in response to his whinny "I don't want
>>> to have to compete against 'their kind'" nonsense. Like SO2R or not,
>>> use SO2R or not, operators who use SO2R are just as much a single
>>> operator as the guy with an IC-718 and AV-640 on the back deck. SO2R
>>> operators should not be prevented from competing against other single
>>> operator stations any more someone who has a tribander at 70 feet
>>> should be prevented from competing with those of us who are limited
>>> to verticals and low wires.
>>>
>>> If one does not like SO2R as it is currently structured, the alternative
>>> is to convince contest sponsors to adopt band change
>>> limits (e.g., "n" band changes per clock hour) or a "10 minute
>>> rule." Such rules significantly limit the "advantage" of SO2R
>>> techniques while applying the same rules to all.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2010 7:01 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>>> I guess badgering and being obnoxious is not only limited to post made
>>> by
>>>> W4TV.
>>>>
>>>> If all hams had your attitude Ham Radio would have died before it
>>> started.
>>>>
>>>> And I thought we were ambassadors of goodwill.
>>>>
>>>> Bill I think you need to use the delete key more and find a more fire
>>> proof
>>>> suit OM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1
>>>> W0MU.NET or 67.40.148.194
>>>>
>>>> "A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you
>>> may
>>>> never get over." Ben Franklin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|