Well that was a lot of help Steve.... You can crawl back under your rock now...
Cecil K5DL Sent using recycled electrons. > On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:23 PM, STEVE DANIEL <[email protected]> wrote: > > Guy. You did it the "hard" way did you? I have been a ham and DXer since 1973 > and have always encountered people like you. "You don't know how hard it was > when I was your age. You have no idea how hard it was to work DX back then" > Blah Blah Blah. It was BS then and it is BS now. The only thing that matters > is if one works within the rules of the award or contest in which they > compete. Technology evolves; rules evolve. Perhaps you and your ilk need to > do the same. Look backward if you must. I choose to look in the other > direction. Steve Daniel, NN4T >> On January 15, 2018 at 6:28 PM Guy Olinger K2AV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> With apologies to Tree, who has asked that this subject be dropped... >> >> The question of the effect of a remote receiver or receivers has >> already been dealt with by some contest organizers needing clarity and >> consistency using current actual technical possibilities while >> retaining the flavor and character of a contest. Probably the best >> (IMHO) adjustment on remotes is that from Tree and Lew and the >> inimitable BARC in the Stew Perry TBDC. >> >> The first part of their answer simply says remote RX *and* TX is fine, >> and is treated like a very long electronic line from key and headset >> to the station wherever it is. Grid square and possible required >> xxn/callsign signing are from the remote location, which is the point >> of record for scoring, standing, awards, etc. >> >> The second part is that using a local TX the receiver(s) may be >> *entirely* co-located with the TX, or the RX facility may be >> *entirely* sited at a single location 75 km or less from the TX >> location. Using this provision, listening on the TX antenna is not >> permitted during the contest. Although the rule uses the word >> "receiver" in the singular, in their mind it does not preclude use of >> a remote diversity RX, eg, K3 equipped with phase-locked diversity >> subRX. >> >> Please remember that "cheating" with respect to ARRL DXCC has to do >> with *ARRL* rules for same. Arguably some DXCC rules are so lax as to >> be meaningless, but they are the ARRL's rules. It has nothing to do >> with our being irritated or angered by someone who using modern >> technical extensions claims the same status as ourselves when we have >> gotten those numbers the HARD way, digging out countries through the >> urban noise never heard up on those mountain or off-continent remotes. >> >> In the end someone whose status self-image depends on what others do >> is inevitably doomed to anger. There will always, always be a cheat >> among us somewhere. If we must compare, compare ourselves only to the >> most noble examples. Or better yet BE that most noble example, knowing >> God knows even if no one else does, and sleep well at night. >> >> 73, Guy K2AV >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Steve Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> John, is the use of a remote receiver not allowed for DXCC? I don’t believe >>> it is prohibited. I ask because your use of the word “cheating” suggests >>> that it is. Is that what you are saying? Steve Daniel NN4T >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 12:31 PM, John Randall via Topband >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Although I have never chased awards, I too am shocked at how easy it has >>>> become for those so inclined to cheat the system, but not only the system >>>> ,but themselves as well. Ofcourse not everyone will cheat but perhaps what >>>> we should be discussing is how to detect those who do cheat. Perhaps a DIY >>>> written document on how to to do this and what to look out for. This would >>>> be of tremendous help for the new comers to the hobby and also us old >>>> fogeys who have been around for a long time.Technology is a blessing and >>>> also a curse. Perhaps one way to try and get back some control is force >>>> all websdr's to enforce a full amateur call sign to its subscribers and >>>> then to make the dbases available for scrutinity sothat the logs can be >>>> compared to say the DXCC mechanisms. This is just a thought and worth >>>> chewing over or other methods used. >>>> Talking of which, has anyone noticed that the imfamous amaeteur in Spain >>>> has been absent on the bands incl topband. >>>> >>>> 73John - M0ELS >>>> _________________ >>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
