Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:mjc5@psu.edu: 253 ]

Total 253 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] [SEDXC] FW: [RTTY] thats very sad Gert - LOTW UserUpdate (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:23:15 -0500
Perhaps it shows the importance of LoTW compared to those other programs. It may be of utmost importance to you or me, but the ARS world is a big place, with lots of different people with different p
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00507.html (10,320 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] New category: "Wires only"?? (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:36:06 -0500
Who's going to enforce this? One of the side effects of in-depth rules is that the more rules added, the more cheating happens, inadvertent as well as purposeful. And the more interpretation is neede
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00543.html (11,248 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] New category: "Wires only"?? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:11:52 -0500
Easy there Tyler! It isn't a closed mind, but examples of questions that WILL be asked!. I'll bow out of this thread now, sorry to have upset you. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - ______________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00599.html (10,655 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Wires Only (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:53:49 -0500
I suppose then you won't like my proposal for a "Crummy Station" Category? hehe Sorry, just had to say that! 8^) `- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mail
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00643.html (8,164 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Filed Day operations on digital??? (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:02:55 -0500
I've had a PSK31 station at field day for the past three years, and it has been very nice for two reasons. First is that there is plenty of activity, at least enough to pick up a fair number of 2 poi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00158.html (7,652 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Filed Day operations on digital??? (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:07:33 -0500
Hehe, I know that one! Some folks want to tell you what the color of their laptop is..... 8^) I'm hoping that eventually the psk'ers will shift to PSK63. That should make it about as fast as a CW QSO
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00184.html (8,968 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] CONTEST CRIMINALS (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:22:59 -0500
Hi Rick, Which is the criminal statute that "self spotting" falls under? Is it a misdemeanor or is it a felony? A forged log? I'm being a little facetious here, because you probably want to separate
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-03/msg00198.html (12,047 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] FD observations and suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:35:29 -0400
I have seen some "contesters" berate newbies for: not answering fast enough Not calling CQ correctly Calling a station in normal fashion saying "Please copy" Saying "thanks" Early on, I caught some f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00337.html (10,529 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] FD observations and suggestion (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:05:39 -0400
Yup. What I try to do is to give a short tutorial. Then when the new guy or gal makes a mistake, I'll first tell them don't worry, then I'll explain what they might try next, such as not calling the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00360.html (11,636 bytes)

30. [CQ-Contest] How about some hard data? was Unique perspectives (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:00:08 -0400
Not much we can do to stop someone. But let us look at the process this cheater would have to follow. 1. Cheater would first have to use a callbook, or better yet one of the web lookup services. Then
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00445.html (12,090 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] A proposal (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:43:50 -0400
The problem as I see it is that believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there that don't like contesters at all. Seems they think we clog up the bands, and play the he who has the most power
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00013.html (8,813 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] A proposal (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:28:32 -0400
On Aug 2, 2006, at 4:51 PM, <ku8e@bellsouth.net> <ku8e@bellsouth.net> wrote: Of course. Propagation pretty much dictates that. Which means that the others are going to be on those bands also. Remembe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00033.html (10,335 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting Extinction (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:58:47 -0400
One of the things that got me started in HF and the idea of radiosport was that I was invited as a technician out to our club Field day, and I operated while a (very patient) control OP logged at the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00097.html (10,110 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:07:42 -0400
It is going to be a *hard* sell to both the contesters and sponsors of state QSO parties that it is imperative to them to change their designators so that it is convenient for county hunters only! Ar
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00149.html (11,067 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:53:16 -0400
Actually Ron, I think that this statement cuts to the heart of the issue. I'm still taking heat - from around the world - for those additions. Which is why I get a little amused when I hear about spo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00157.html (9,616 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:09:42 -0400
There will be several, operating in different counties. Your software will handle it in either of two ways. 1 - by accounting for the different counties automatically when you set up the software. Th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00196.html (9,139 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:45:06 -0400
Here is the reason: Last year, we only required in-state logs to submit hardcopy summary, and the result was that almost 40 percent of our logs came in without a summary at all. Since we generate the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00206.html (8,906 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:01:11 -0400
The typical mistakes we find are lack of the EPA/WPA mults. The party uses sections instead of states. Another problem is that blasted 1.5 point CW QSO point value. Depending on where you round up, i
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00218.html (9,584 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Fwd: Re: 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans] (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:47:43 -0400
Rex, You might start your own contest and show us sleepyheads how to do it. ;^) The impetus for the paper summary sheet requirement *was* the electronic log submission process. I set up the log email
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00259.html (10,234 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] [Fwd: Re: 2006 Pa QSO Party Plans] (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:15:08 -0400
I should clarify that the PAQSO wants cabrillo files also. I think that somewhere along the line, there was a popular misconception that we required log submission via pony express, and that they nee
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00261.html (9,099 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu