Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:phriendly1@yahoo.com: 276 ]

Total 276 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] Open Letter to CAC (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:03:32 -0800 (PST)
I do really enjoy the QRP power reports, actually anything under 100 watts. The EU folks seem to have the broadest range, as I recall this time, 5, 10, 20, 50, 75 and NN. I would miss that... Or eve
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00405.html (8,833 bytes)

42. Re: [CQ-Contest] Open Letter to CAC (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:18:25 -0800 (PST)
That's true John, but it says nothing about how often one sends their call, or for that matter how one "sends and receives" that info ;o) The Sprint is VERY specific on the exchange, think it may be
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00416.html (9,761 bytes)

43. Re: [CQ-Contest] Open logs in 2008 Russian DX Contest (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
I think signing /QRP is rather silly and counterproductive in general during a contest. It does not benefit either operator and complicates the exchange. Why make a challenging QSO even more difficul
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00233.html (10,440 bytes)

44. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Pete, Actually, it kinda saddens me that "the temptation to cheat will be almost overwhelming" is the main reason for allowing skimmer technology in SO unassisted. This implies that many are already
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00279.html (14,241 bytes)

45. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Joe, I don't think anyone is trying to marginalize skimmer technology, nor do I think that the "assisted" category is to be considered inferior to "unassisted". There are elite in both categories. I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00300.html (10,422 bytes)

46. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
I agree with Ed, keep on developing the technology. He also has a good point on the "robo wars", which won't be too far down the pike. There is another possible benefit that I haven't seen discussed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00301.html (10,597 bytes)

47. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
This may be true SO2R, but one would be hard pressed to give up a good run frequency SO1R for a possible multiplier. You're just as likely to pick up the odd multiplier running... Maybe it's differen
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00321.html (13,570 bytes)

48. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Not a very good analogy Pete... Using this logic, straight keys, bugs, paddles would all be banned, just like horses and pedestrians from travel on the highway. 73, Julius http://lists.contesting.com
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00409.html (10,912 bytes)

49. Re: [CQ-Contest] SKIMMER = BUMMER (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
To the best of my knowledge, even tho' CW readers have been around for years, few, serious or even semi-serious contesters use the technology. For that matter, how many folks in the general ham publi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00413.html (18,144 bytes)

50. Re: [CQ-Contest] SKIMMER = BUMMER (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
I don't know that anyone is proposing a complete or even partial ban on the technology. It definitely has benefits, as does any code reading technology, particularly getting non-CW folks started on C
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00438.html (9,459 bytes)

51. [CQ-Contest] 2007 NEQP Plaque (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
I'd like to thank all of the folks who work so hard to put on the NEQP. Special thanks to W1VB, Vern Brownell, for sponsoring the US Single Operator QRP plaque. It will be a great addition to the sha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00488.html (6,761 bytes)

52. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Results (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
I would guess some start as soon as they have two logs. Particularly the large contests... It takes a lot of time to compare all of the logs in say CQWW or ARRL DX. Then you also have to translate th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00560.html (8,405 bytes)

53. Re: [CQ-Contest] How many more creative subjects using "skimmer" are there? (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Tree, Somehow I can just picture your eyes alight in ecstasy over the possibilities of skimmer log checking... It will solve some problems and maybe create new ones. What would prevent someone from g
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00564.html (8,230 bytes)

54. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (further rules deal) (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Maybe it's the lower participation rate, particularly with the mobiles. Mobile activity can make or break a QSO party. Folks probably have their hands full with two modes in some cases. Certainly cou
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00568.html (14,111 bytes)

55. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimming Along (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Mike, again, I don't see anyone calling for a ban on the technology, just the appropriate place for it. Too, assisted should not be looked down upon as a category. It's not inferior, it's just a dif
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00571.html (9,015 bytes)

56. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Results (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
John, K4BAI pointed out to me that even the big contests rely on volunteers... Even with computers 2000+ entries are a lot to process and compare. Thanks to all of those behind the scenes! http://lis
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00574.html (9,298 bytes)

57. Re: [CQ-Contest] How many more creative subjects using "skimmer" are there? (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sounds good, but... There will be endless fights over "exceptions" and "competitive"... And, where's the incentive for a casual operator who just might win, place or show? This might solve one proble
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00576.html (11,422 bytes)

58. Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimming Along (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mike, I've see that now and stand corrected... The jury is still out here on that ;o) Maybe I've seen and read too much SciFi... There's definitely good and bad, definitely a more philosophical discu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00020.html (12,194 bytes)

59. Re: [CQ-Contest] Petition to Ban Skimmer (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
You know what would be truly revolutionary... If N1MM could log, score and generate the appropriate cabrillo logs for all of this past weekends QSO party from a single file. THAT would be a killer ed
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00129.html (10,236 bytes)

60. Re: [CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox... (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 02:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
This topic seems to have been discussed last year as well. I think the MARAC/7QP/InQP/NEQP weekend is somewhat unique. You probably have more casual contesters who are most interested in new counties
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00169.html (11,142 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu