Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:alfred.frugoli@gmail.com: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and contest submissions (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:20:49 -0500
On the other hand, my general logging program doesn't do my general logging. So, after the contest is over I import my log into DXKeeper (my general logging program). DXKeeper allows me to upload dir
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00496.html (14,186 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] FW: Getscores.org Changes/Improvements... (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:15:41 -0500
According to Randy's website, he used Writelog as of 2000 (and possibly still does). If you look at http://www.getscores.org/wlposter.aspx, you'll see that the writelog posting application allows you
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00204.html (18,833 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] FW: Getscores.org Changes/Improvements. (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:02:54 -0500
Ken, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. How exactly would it have altered your strategy? Seeing K5TR's q or mult totals vs yours? Knowing which band he was on? If you knew which band he was on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00275.html (9,891 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Getscores.org Changes/Improvements... (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:52 -0500
Or K5YYY stays up, misses any cat nap, and then finds that his sleep deprived brain can't pick any calls out of the high band pileups the next morning and can only maintain a rate of 100/hour and is
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00308.html (12,134 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Getscores.org Changes/Improvements... (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:30:08 -0500
Ed, The problem here is that there is now way to verify any of this. Anybody can surf to www.getscores.org and it would never be apparent to the contest sponsor or any other competitor. You only know
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00339.html (12,545 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] MO2R ? (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:02:50 -0500
My reading of Paul's message was different. I read Multi Single, with the main operating position having an 2R setup such that a single operator can work 2 bands (run on 1, mults on the other). I wou
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00347.html (8,188 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] [NCCC] DUMB CUT NUMBER (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:40:03 -0500
Hang on here everyone, Personally I find the CQWW contest annoying, and what you're advocating essentially turns ARRL DX into the same thing. In CQWW all you have to do is make sure you've got the ca
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00343.html (14,529 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Copying (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:25:23 -0500
Chuck, I do believe it is on you. Should the other station have sent something other than ETE? Probably, but I bet he programmed ETE into his contest software before the contest and just hit it every
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00373.html (9,735 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests? (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:24:26 -0500
Contesters, I had a rather eye opening experience this weekend. I did some listening to K5ZD audio archives online. I was amazed at how quick he is to skip over a station that's not ready for a calle
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00573.html (10,964 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] [NCCC] ARRL SSB DX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:33:48 -0500
Eric, This flawed logic blows a big hole in your argument. Nowhere do the rules state that the only acceptable abbreviation for California is CA. It only says that US/VE stations send their state and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00079.html (9,828 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Exchange Inconsistencies & Integrity (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:18:59 -0400
I thought the purpose of contests was to enhance operator skill, not dumb down the exchange so anybody can get it right. Besides, as has been stated before, if you want a contest with a straightforwa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00211.html (8,057 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently prohibit CW Skimmer use (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:57:50 -0400
The problem with this whole discussion is that the "dead horse" becomes very alive when you talk about enforcement. I'm 'relatively' new to contesting (15 years or so). From my perspective, the honor
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00321.html (11,640 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:12:32 -0400
Only if ARRL wants to exclude Skimmer from it's contests. Who's to say the rules aren't intentionally vague - mabye to encourage innovation? 73 de Al, KE1FO __________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00534.html (8,139 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's 1977again (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:55:19 -0400
What about LOTW's need to have each log encrypted by someone who has the correct key for that file? How would the contest sponsors do this? Also, LOTW does not accept Cabrillo logs, specifically beca
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00407.html (14,601 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's 1977again (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:52 -0400
Pete, What I don't see is how a cross checked log from a contest sponsor meets the current ARRL/LOTW security standards. The log has not been encrypted by the log submitter. It was sent as a plain te
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00415.html (11,380 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:06:55 -0400
Let's be clear here. I'm not squabbing over who's getting along with who. I'm talking about the fact that ARRL has established LOTW based on a set of principles and guidelines (found here<http://trus
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00423.html (13,751 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's 1977again (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:25:10 -0400
Not exactly. See below from the LOTW FAQ<https://p1k.arrl.org/lotw/faq#contestlog>. The TQSL utility converts Cabrillo files to the encrypted format needed by LOTW. The log I send in for ARRL DX can'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00432.html (11,710 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu