CW Skimmer and Related Enhancements

Signatures 673 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 14 › »

1. 1
   Name: Jim Neiger, N6TJ on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Mal N7MAL on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Al 4L5A on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Vlad on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Vlad, UU5MAF on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Nodir EY8MM on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments: I vote for CW!

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Mikhail Bondarev, RL3BM on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Bob Shohet on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Gia Gvaladze on Apr 29, 2008

   Comments: I fully agree with this, though probabely hard to control the actual use 73 Gia

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Paul H. Newberry, Jr. on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Agree 100%

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Stan Stockton, K5GO on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Bob Harrington on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Skimmers should not be part of CW Contesting

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Oliver Sweningsen on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: This is a form of assistance; on the order of packet radio.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Roger Cranford on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: N5RR - Bill on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Great DX tool, but not for CW contests

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: RED Cranford K5ALU on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Stan Ross K5VR on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Ron Evans, K5XK on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Anonymous on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: The CW Skimmer would signal the end of my interest in CW contesting. It's like allowing steroids in sports.

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Arthur R. Trampler on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Such a degree of automation will remove the necessity for operator skill, perseverance and courtesy. Please reject all application and use of Skimmer in CW contests! K0RO

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Bob Shohet, KQ2M on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Joe Smith on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Paul Haefner, K on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Alex Tkatch on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Paul H. Newberry, Jr. - N4PN on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Paul H. Newberry, Jr. - N4PN on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Tonno Vahk on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: ES5TV

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Bob Harrington AA6PW on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Milton Garb on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Can't we just keep the hobby at it's current competitive level without all of this cheating crap

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: David B. Ritchie on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: Nice technology - not appropriate for contesting.

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Roberto Soro I2WIJ on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: I agree with the terms of this petition. Keep CWSkimmer out of CW Contesting.

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Mike Baker, NT6X on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Paul H. Newberry, Jr. - N4PN on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Steve Lufcy K0OU on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Carlin Royal on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Andy Chadwick, ZC4VJ / G3AB on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Kevin Stockton, N5DX on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Vitor L A Santos, PY2NY on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: SO2R ok, N1MM Logger ok, amplifier for HP category ok, Cluster at assisted category ok... Skimmer will put away CW operators capabilities. Big chance to have "Skimmer people" going far than "real CW ops" there... Nothing against VE3NEA or his nice software, but this is not exactly good for contests...

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: George Schultz on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: I'm afraid this is going to be like amplifiers and VFO's for CB'ers--difficult to control. Contesting in general has already become such a computer-game--"single operator assisted," Super-Check Partial, band-maps, etc, etc. Unless we're going to entertain a "fully automated" category, this skimmer-business seems a good place to draw the line. Now about these "CHAT (CHEAT) ROOMS" during contests...

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Frank Fahrlander on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments: The above says it all.

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Mark Manes WC5I on Apr 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Andy UA3DPX on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Kirk Pickering K4RO on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments: I would prefer to maintain CW contesting as an OPERATOR sport, where the operator has to decode the signals heard. Wide band decoding technology may possibly have a place in digital mode contests, but it feels inappropriate for CW contests. In my opinion, it's a shame that packet/cluster use wasn't nipped in the bud when we had a chance. Who knew it would actually lower operating skills Perhaps we can dodge this bullet before it's too late. 73

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Albert Crespo on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: 5B4AGM on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: 5B4AGM on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments: I havn't any credit card and PayPal. How I send the donation

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: 5B4AGM on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments: I havn't any credit card and PayPal. How I send the donation

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Yuri Onipko VE3DZ on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Jd Thomas on Apr 30, 2008

    Comments: Now let's also have a petition requesting that no more than 5w be used in qrp class no more than 100w be used in low power class no more than 1500w be used in hp class

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 14 › »