| To: | <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules for HQ stns in |
| From: | "Marijan Miletic" <s56a@bit.si> |
| Date: | Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:22:03 +0200 |
| List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
DF3KV wrote: The low bands are a bit different there they are more valuable. Don´t overrate the value of calls with the own country for the final result. These are this year 3830 data for 160 m EU and NA HQ. No overrating, please :-) T90HQ 160: 213 24 33 OE1A 160: 400 503 38 OM6HQ 160: 424 358 39 4N9HQ 160: 428 265 39 OL4HQ 160: 440 277 40 OP0HQ 160: 470 196 46 DA0HQ 160: 1199 1205 42 VA3RAC 160: 154 0 9 NU1AW 160: 256 155 19 W1AW 160: 266 112 14 73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] [CQ-Contest] CQ WW VHF Recap for a Dozenparticipants, Ken Alexander |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [CQ-Contest] My thoughts about IARU and HQ stations, Tree |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules forHQ stnsinIARUcontest, Bill Tippett |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules for HQ stns in, Peter Voelpel |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |