Gerry,
I agree with your comments completely.
I seem to have a better chance in the old fashioned
low power class.
If I can stay in the top 20 and have occasional
excursions into the top 10, I figure at my age,
equipment, antennas, etc....it ain't too bad.
73, Tom K5IID
At 17:53 06/05/01 +0100, Gerry K8GT wrote:
>Ben,
>
>But why would you want to? I've found that even though the T/S group is
>smaller, the competition is worse. I've only had dipoles, and now a
>multiband vertical, and my sole aim is to stay away from the bottom of
>the list, and keep moving up. Comparing my scores between LP
>(Unassisted) and T/S, in T/S, I would have been closer to the bottom of
>the list. :) In fact, there was a time or two that I would have been
>better, in that regard, to have entered HP, but that's rare.
>
>YMMV
>
>73, Gerry K8GT
>
>
>
>Ben Coleman wrote:
> >
>
> > Would this rule out someone with only wire antennas from entering in
> > the TS category (the so-called "TS with no T" operation)? If the
> > intent is to provide a category for those with limited antennas to
> > compete in, does it make sense to force those with even less of an
> > antenna (i.e. no T) to have to compete in categories without the
> > antenna limitations?
> >
> > Ben
> > --
> > Ben Coleman oloryn@benshome.net | The attempt to legislatively
> > http://oloryn.home.mindspring.com/ | micromanage equality results, at
> > Amateur Radio NJ8J | best, in equal misery for all.
> >
> > --
> > CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> > Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
>
>--
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|