Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> >Then this supports the idea that the "problem" (if there is one) of "captive
> >rovers" (if they actually exist) is miniscule, and inconsequential to the
> >overall outcome of an event. Hardly worthy of legislating against.
>
> Ev,
>
> Hardly minuscule or inconsequential at all! Think about the potential...if
> a multi-op sponsors a half dozen captive rovers
There's a phrase above that summarizes this thread, "Think about the
potential...if <snip>". Note the word, "Potential" and the word "if". It is
easy to villify and slay a Dragon, if one takes it upon onesself to define it's
personality and abilities (hence the power of propaganda). However reality is
quite a different thing. Dragons (and captive rovers) have yet to be proven to
exist.
Until this mythological creature:
o can be proven to actually exist *and*
o is proven to harm the event if it does actually exist
this thread is meaningless.
And now for the full-circle: This is e-x-a-c-t-l-y the reason that it is
imperitive to use r-e-a-l data to identify "the problem with VHF contesting
today" (aka. Gene's QST article) and not leave it up to unstubstantiatable "gut
feel" personal observation.
Ev Tupis, W2EV
PS...my next email on the topic will use Ed's excellent "if" scenario, but with
the tables turned and a finger pointed back at those who purport the existance
of captive rovers. Kindly of course. :)
|