- 341. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:39:23 -0400
- W9SZ said "Supposing there were a website that listed real-time scores of other stations - and that's all - with NO info on bands, band changes, frequencies, times or anything other than their score
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00053.html (8,346 bytes)
- 342. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 19:38:22 -0400
- Its true on the different propagation areas but hopefully you are not really competing with those areas either. XE is not competing with D4. Ed N1UR From: Fco. Luis Delgadillo [mailto:xe2b@outlook.co
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00057.html (9,653 bytes)
- 343. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 05:59:46 -0400
- Which is why it is best left in the assisted category. Honestly, even the Mult totals, if you watch close, which you have to assume you are when you are unassisted since that channel of info is not b
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00066.html (11,085 bytes)
- 344. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:19:28 -0400
- Ditto the KD4D post. Why don't we let the unassisted operators decide whether the concern of assisted ops invading our category is worth eliminating it over the concern? No reason to merge the 2 cate
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00093.html (8,864 bytes)
- 345. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:16:54 -0400
- KE0L said "Me too! I think so2r is a huge advantage over so1r. I bet we would see more newbies stay with contesting if they felt they had a fighting chance to win with their so1r setup. They put in a
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00119.html (9,094 bytes)
- 346. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:29:41 -0400
- Randy - K5ZD made some very interesting points in this dialog: "I made no assertion about one style of operating being better or worse than another." Comment - Then let's stop listing the winners of
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00120.html (10,135 bytes)
- 347. Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:26:49 -0400
- N2WQ said: "So why would a contest encourage participants not to develop new skills and techniques? Is there any other sport that says "It's OK if you don't want to get better, we will create a categ
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00142.html (8,983 bytes)
- 348. [CQ-Contest] NIL increases (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:15:56 -0400
- Anyone else notice a significant increase in NIL over the past couple of years and said "what gives?" and also wonder why the dupe rate of notable callsigns is rising? Now that I am starting to "try"
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00212.html (7,569 bytes)
- 349. [CQ-Contest] NIL Increases (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:22:13 -0400
- W2UP asked - "Do you ID after every QSO?" Answer - yes - 95% of the time. I will string 2 or 3 together when the rate is 200+ and I hear a lot of callers in the pile, but ID by the 4th even then. The
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-04/msg00225.html (7,595 bytes)
- 350. Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:38:31 -0400
- It is amazing to me that the Power categories get a "pass" in this decade long debate of converging categories because it is difficult to prove if someone is cheating. The assisted issue is actually
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-05/msg00089.html (10,262 bytes)
- 351. Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 01:24:11 -0400
- KO7SS said "Maybe the "committee" and the "volunteers" are tired of checking logs. Sure is easy to just have one big category. What did YOU last do to help check the logs?" Have any of us been ASKED
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-05/msg00105.html (9,427 bytes)
- 352. Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 05:55:57 -0400
- LU5DX said "I'm not trying to escape the answer. Power cheating if of a total different nature and it is a matter of infrastructure to prove that someone is cheating. In the case of unclaimed assista
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-05/msg00226.html (9,118 bytes)
- 353. Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:05:19 -0400
- K5GO wrote: "I'm curious as to why the assisted operators want to eliminate the unassisted category and for that matter why their opinion matters? Is there any answer to the question above? Obviously
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-05/msg00227.html (9,374 bytes)
- 354. Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:54:28 -0400
- Yuri's "confusion" on assistance vs "gadgets" is probably the reason why almost all of the DQs on unclaimed assistance come out of Europe. I think that just changing the category name to unlimited vs
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-05/msg00258.html (9,327 bytes)
- 355. [CQ-Contest] Field Day Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:56:36 -0400
- "The use of switching systems that allow for lockouts in order to use multiple transmitters (i.e., an "octopus") in an attempt to enter a lower-number-of-transmitters class are prohibited (i.e. usin
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-06/msg00025.html (7,542 bytes)
- 356. Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 14:04:29 -0400
- Thanks Ron. I don't particularly have a suggestion as to whether SO2R or Multi-Single techniques are called 1 transmitter or 2 transmitter. After all, its field day. But I believe whoever can re-word
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-06/msg00041.html (12,236 bytes)
- 357. Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:04:53 -0400
- If there was a 10 min band change rule for all categories before, why was it eliminated? For Field Day, it would seem to make sense. That rule by itself, would not eliminate 2 transmitters using one
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-06/msg00046.html (8,725 bytes)
- 358. Re: [CQ-Contest] Field Day Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:54:23 -0400
- Jim, that might be your interpretation, but why is it so hard for the rule to be clear? Ed N1UR For most Field Day operations, a "transmitter" means "a transmitter", not the number is signals that ma
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-06/msg00066.html (11,779 bytes)
- 359. [CQ-Contest] Field Day Rules - From the ARRL (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:00:18 -0400
- I took Tom, K1KI's, suggestion and reached out the Field Day Contest director for clarification, Bart, W9JJ. Here is his answer directly copied from the response. "Field Day rules reference the numbe
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-06/msg00070.html (7,836 bytes)
- 360. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Committee Restructured (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:48:44 -0400
- I think the CQ WW contest works fine the way it is. And judging by the growth over the past 20 years, thousands would be indicating the same. I would love the suggestions being made to either rescue
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00099.html (8,703 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu