In a message dated 2/15/01 11:31:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< They must be desperate for some sort of recognition even to the extent of
bending the rules as they go along. >>
Odd. I must have missed something. I don't recall the parties involved
asking for awards or prizes, so what "rules" are getting bent?
Seems to me a much easier way to gain recognition is to disparage others and
impugn their motives time and again on an e-mail reflector. I hate to give
that kind of recognition by responding at all, and shall generally refrain
from doing so in future, but this behavior makes a mockery of free speech.
<< Involving a third party in a qso is certainly not valid regardless of the
circumstances. >>
While I would agree that the spirit of the Bobek Award is ultimately to
reward a QSO in which two stations communicate directly with each other, both
of them transmitting and receiving on LF, the statement "regardless of the
circumstances" is an incredible over-generalization. Third parties in QSOs
are commonplace in the real world, as is having to relay for benefit of
parties who don't have the ability to receive each other directly.
While not a simple, unembellished two-way exchange, the UK-Canadian QSO in
question is an honourable achievement. All winter long, amateurs on both
sides of the Atlantic have been able to view each others' signals, but until
now, no one had demonstrated that the path would remain open in both
directions long enough for a proper exchange to take place. This has now
been done. The next step is to get the necessary receive and transmit
capability in the same place on this side of the pond, and do it "for keeps."
<< Can anyone remember off hand who made the first 160 m qso across the pond,
or the first on 6 metres and who cares!!!!!!!!!! >>
I care!
Those names don't spring to mind as readily as they do for the first
transatlantic amateur contact ever, but I do occasionally think of those
feats. It is good to know I can look them up when I choose to do, because
somebody at the time thought it important enough to record the information
for future generations.
John Currie, John Leahy, and Peter Dodd will not be household names 50 years
from now. Neither will be whoever finally accomplishes a plain two-way QSO,
nor whoever finally does it in normal-speed CW, or whatever. So, what is the
point of trying to deny them the present satisfaction of having done
something worthwhile NOW?
That goes beyond trying to uphold some ideal of perfection. It's just plain
mean-spiritedness.
John H. Davis
KD4IDY
|
