Hi Paul,
You aren't exactly being 100 per cent honest when you appear to single out
the Internet. You have previously said that even all-amateur-band remote
setups would go against your grain.
In truth, it seems to me that remote operation offends only your
sensibility, as remote operation really doesn't benefit the remote operator
any more than actually travelling to the radio site.
As for your "I'm special" argument, you have to realize that the converse is
also true: "I'm special. I have the room for antennas so I should be allowed
to play while you aren't."
Regardless, as Doug points out, at least two contests already allow remote
operation. So for those contests, your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
More contests will likely follow, as any sponsor's only reason for running a
contest is to encourage participation, and in some cases, sell more
magazines.
If this is something you feel so strongly about, I would encourage you to
begin a petition to the world's contest sponsors. Don't add my name to that
petition, however.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 2/27/11 2:06 PM, "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> On 27/02/2011 16:29, Pete Smith wrote:
>
>> Paul, as Hans and others have tried to point out, this is ridiculously
>> over the top and out of touch with reality.
>
> Then, let's try a reality check.
>
>
> There is a huge difference
>> between using the Internet for the actual communication between two
>> *stations*, and using it as, in effect, an extra-long headphone cord.
>
> In either scenario, there can be no QSO without
> the internet.
>
> Amateur radio is independent of the internet.
> Otherwise, we would call it something else.
> That's reality.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|