CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Pre-publication checking

Subject: Pre-publication checking
From: JPontek@aol.com (JPontek@aol.com)
Date: Sat Apr 22 10:45:18 1995
YEA!

A sensible idea. Post a check-in list of contest logs by call letters, date
received and claimed score. This last part would certainly allow the contest
administrators to do a check prior to publication for discrepancies. If these
lists were maintained daily, you would be able to check for your logs receipt
and respond accordingly if it failed to show up after, say, two weeks.  This
would certainly be a good reason to NOT wait until the last minute to send
your logs in.

73, K8Joe"Palooka"
jpontek@aol.com


>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Sat Apr 22 13:42:34 1995
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: ARRL contest scores online
Message-ID: <NPJy4c1w165w@w2up.wells.com>

John Pescatore <jpescato@CapAccess.org> writes:

> How 'bout asking ARRL to set up a reflector or something where we don't
> have to call in to it long distance -- sorry, was there an 800# -- if so,
> I whipped by it too quick --.  Some of us (me at least) are under
> instructions from the YL to keep the LD calls down to a minimum -- we're
> on tight budgets.  If the ARRL traffic came in mixed with my CR traffic
> that would be just fine.
> 
> (Rich Boyd KE3Q)

Obviously a Democrat! Rich - if they put in an 800 number who do you 
think pays for it? The masses that don't use it. 
Here's one vote against.
73

--

Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................


>From wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner  W7LZP)  Sat Apr 22 13:14:52 1995
From: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner  W7LZP) (Bill Turner  W7LZP)
Subject: Get off them rocks!
Message-ID: <199504221216.AA16664@mail.eskimo.com>

The W1AW bulletin said in part:

" Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation shall not be
considered for DXCC country status."

This would seem to include Peter I and Heard Island among others.  As far as
I know, no humans have ever "lived" there.  "Vacationing" for a few days
doesn't seem to quite fit the definition, does it?

73, W7LZP
wrt@eskimo.com  (Bill Turner)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Pre-publication checking, JPontek@aol.com <=