Why would it be fair to put someone in an assisted category for using
CU2QSO, just because others don't? That would be like making a special
limited-single-op-low-power category for those who are not fortunate
enough, or maybe prefer not, to operate with all available bands. I
think the main problem here is that it takes away the "old-school" style
of having to depend on yourself for all operating tasks. If I were to
use a Morse Code reader (or software) to decode CW contacts, should that
put me into an assisted category? I think it would follow that to give
the next band you are QSYing to work someone at would be self-spotting,
wouldn't it? Is that assistance to the op on the other end?
73,
Charlie N2IM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:35:07 +0000 "jon jones" <n0jk@hotmail.com> writes:
> >I am not trying to control an aspect of CU2QSO. I am referring to
> rules
> that limit what you can and can't do during a contest and still be
> called
> a single-operator - unassisted.
>
> Actually, maybe that's it.. the CU2QSO system is a spotting system
> where
> the guy you are about to work is giving you assistance in spotting?
> - Tree
>
> I agree with Tree on this one. Nothing against CU2QSO, but really -
> using it
> is single op assisted. Fine to use it in contests, but in the
> correct
> category. Not fair to those operating without such assistance.
>
> - Jon N?JK
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
|