To: | "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer |
From: | "Leigh S. Jones, KR6X" <kr6x@kr6x.com> |
Date: | Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:29:35 -0700 |
List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
Tonno Vahk wrote: > Allowing skimmer in unassisted makes the category pointless and similar to > assisted. Or just maybe it makes the assisted category pointless. Interesting idea, anyway. > All the calls in CW and SSB modes have to be copied by operator. It is > that > simple. Anything else is assisted. Just how long do you think that it will be before a skimmer for SSB appears. I've already worked out the technical details. > I could easily make 100 more DXCC in CQWW assisted, very easy > and huge benefit. This is rich. No objection; read the contest results and you'll note that often a single operator unassisted station will work DXCC on three or four bands in the course of 48 hours. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer, Leigh S. Jones, KR6X |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer, peter.voelpel |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer, Tonno Vahk |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer, rt_clay |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |