>>I can think of at least one scenario in which this could happen which >>would
>>be perfectly consistent with the rules. There are probably more.
>>Doug Smith W9WI
Thanks Doug and others. I did not say that this was illegal, perhaps my post
implied it as I had a couple of offlist mails which assured me that there would
be only one transmitted signal at any given moment. I have no problem accepting
that as fact.
I am way behind the game. My understanding was that the 2nd station was for
finding and working mlt's, my simple mind never envisaged the 2nd station could
be used for s&p on the same band as the running station, nor I doubt did the
Committee when they drew up the rules.
Technology (and enterprise) has moved on into realms way beyond the intention
of the rules, or as some of us will say the 'spirit' of the rules.
We cannot blame the individual groups, peer pressure requires that they compete
and innovate. I have (offboard) been charged with wanting to return to the
'stone age' with my suggestion of one transceiver and one receiver, I prefer to
look upon it as a return to basics, to follow the rules as they were intended.
What guys fail to realise is that it would be a level playingfield decided by
operator skills on the day and not some bright new gizmo/brainwave hatched in
the workshop.
Creativity is to be encouraged, we applaud Committee's efforts to accommodate
new ideas, methods and technology and that is where some of these entries
belong rather than pushing the boundaries of a section which should, prima
facie, be simple and straightforward.
73 Brian 5B4AIZ (C4Z).
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|