[Rover] Are you ready for the January SS??

Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:45:00 -0500

I have to agree with you Dan, I can also see both sides of the argument and like you really have no plans for more bands in the immediate future.   I have also noticed the guys who love to start things up by calling someone 's ideas "silly and stupid" when they don't agree with them. I wish we could all just have a discussion without insulting each other by making things personal.  I guess I'm a bit defensive since they were refering to my "silly and stupid"  post to begin with. I love a good argument but would like to keep things civil for a change. I think A rule change would bring in and also keep more Rovers not the opposite. Hopefully in the future adding more bands as money and time permits. There is no logic to the other side of the argument.  If I had the equipment I would use it.  I believe the big multis that droped down to the limited category did so because they were not competitive with the the other big multis, due to either inferior equipment, man power or loc!
 ation.  Think about it, If I either built or payed for a kick butt Rover station, why would I leave it all collecting dust and run just run 4 bands? I feel bad for you guys as I wrote this on my palm pilot without a spell checker!! (grin) 

Dave Wendling
[email protected]
Home of Palm Rover Software
http:/www.home.nycap.rr.com/nugidoors/

Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
__________
>Yep,  proposing changes is always a touchy subject.
>
>Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm not totally
>convinced either way.  Clearly there are several different classes of Rover.
>I started out with a Kenwood TR9000 and a TenTec 1209, a homebrew 2m quad
>and a whip for 6.  To compare that with some of the "big gun Rovers" is
>pretty laughable, but I made a lot of QSO's.
>
>I know there are probably a lot of Rovers who will never go for more than 4
>bands.  It's taken me several years to get setup on the 4, and I don't have
>any plans to add more bands anytime soon.  So it would seem logical to have
>a category for all of us "4 banders".
>
>BUT, I REALLY don't like the idea of stations that would abandon bands they
>already have equipment for just to participate in a different category.  And
>I understand that has happened in the Mullet op class.  And it's not against
>the rules, so it is well within their rights to do so.
>
>So we have a quandary.  It would be nice to reward the guys who are slugging
>it out with what they have, but I wouldn't want to take activity away where
>it is really needed.  So, at least for now, I would have to vote for no
>change.
>
>Maybe in time we can debate this issue and come up with a better solution.
>But it seems like whenever something like this comes up the discussion tends
>to get "ugly" in a hurry.
>
>In the mean time, I will continue to do my best with whatever I have, and
>score as many points as I can within the rules, regardless of where my
>callsign appears [or doesn't appear] on the write up;-)
>
>73 & see you in January!
>ABCD
>Dan, K9ZF /R
>Dan Evans K9ZF
>Scottsburg, IN 47170
>{EM78}
>K9ZF /R no budget Rover
>ex-N9RLA
>Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
>http://www.qsl.net/n9rla
>QRP-l #1269
>Central States VHF Society
>IN-Ham list administrator
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Dave Wendling" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 3:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [Rover] Are you ready for the January SS??
>
>
>> Well I can see this is going to be a bit more complicated than I first
>anticipated. Maybe I'll wait out a few more replies and see what  others
>think as well.
>>
>> Dave Wendling
>> [email protected]
>> Home of Palm Rover Software
>> http:/www.home.nycap.rr.com/nugidoors/
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> __________
>> >Dave -- While you are at it...how about a Rover "unassisted" category.
>> >This way the pack rovers and grid dancers -- all perfectly legal -- 
>compete
>> >against themselves, and the people out on their own have their own
>competition.
>> >
>> >The Rover rules say something to the effect that Rovers may take steps to
>> >maximize their scores.  And that's cool.  Big pack rovers add to the
>scores of
>> >home participants and help people work new grids.  However, I would be in
>favor
>> >of a recognition for stations that do it on their own.
>> >
>> >I don't disagree with an ABCD class, but as a six and soon to be seven
>band
>> >Rover; which Pat and I think is our practical maximum for our vehicle
>(it's
>> >back in use Monday for civilian purposes) I do get concerned about Rovers
>> >dropping bands to compete in another class.
>> >
>> >We have seen some multi ops go to the limited multi op category in order
>to
>> >be competitive.  Dropping higher bands has had some question how really
>> >desirable that outcome has been.
>> >
>> >Roving is growing for many reasons.  For us, it's the only way we can
>operate
>> >on an all-out basis.  I'm with you that it's time for Rover competition
>to
>> >take another step.
>> >
>> >BTW, our January plans call for a minimum of 11 and a maximum of 13 grids
>in
>> >IA, MN, WI and IL from us.  It would be great to work you! 73, Tim K0PG/9
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>> >multipart/alternative
>> >  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> >  text/html
>> >The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
>> >or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
>> >to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Rover mailing list
>> >[email protected]
>> >http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rover
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rover mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rover
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rover mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rover