Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:ve4xt@mts.net: 348 ]

Total 348 documents matching your query.

101. [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX, Canadian multipliers (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:36:14 -0600
Hi all, Greetings to all global competitors in ARRL DX. Nice to work all of you. And nice to have sunspots and a forgiving auroral cap to be ABLE to work all of you! One thing that became apparent in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00214.html (7,984 bytes)

102. Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Our QSO in ARRL-DX-Contest (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:16:00 -0600
Maybe it is. Confirm it AFTER the log entry deadline. 73, kelly ve4xt -- Original Message -- From: <k8bb@comcast.net> To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:18 AM Subject:
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00218.html (8,422 bytes)

103. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX, Canadian multipliers (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:47:35 -0600
From http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08168e.html#1.1 1.2 Call Sign Prefixes When a Canadian applicant is qualified to install or operate an amateur radio station, a call si
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00229.html (8,022 bytes)

104. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Band Change rule (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:53:05 -0600
Honesty, and the presumption of it, is the backbone of so many rules (1500 watts, are you really running a tribander and wires?, you're NOT using e-mail to avoid busted Qs, right?) that to apply it t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-02/msg00308.html (9,361 bytes)

105. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2006 SSB WPX (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:34:42 -0500
Personally, I think the callsign borrowing thing is much ado about nothing. To quote Charlie Sheen in Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "You could ditch." If there's nothing stopping Ham A from doing it, the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-04/msg00155.html (7,731 bytes)

106. Re: [CQ-Contest] UBN call confirmed by LOTW ?!?!?!!? (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:48:54 -0500
Hi Jamie, B doesn't penalize folk who worked someone who didn't submit a log, B and N should only penalize when a cross-referencing of logs provides clear evidence something went wrong. There are thr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-04/msg00169.html (9,414 bytes)

107. Re: [CQ-Contest] 1 x 2 callsigns (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:20:40 -0500
The key to callsigns, IMHO, is to pick one with good phonetics and good CW duration, and then, most important -- USE IT A LOT! If you use it a lot, that will become more important than the actual cal
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-04/msg00221.html (10,339 bytes)

108. Re: [CQ-Contest] New multi-multi location in EWA? (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 9:45:01 -0500
Considering the state of disarray that still plagues the Russian nuclear program, do you really want to live at a site that's probably still not removed from the Russian targetting computers? Then ag
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-05/msg00050.html (10,853 bytes)

109. [CQ-Contest] lighten up (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 21:38:03 -0500
The following is from Riley Hollingsworth, special counsel for enforcement at the FCC. Worthy reading for any would-be contesting cops out there. If you know of one, pass this on. Copied from the ARR
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-05/msg00246.html (6,799 bytes)

110. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Rig (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:51:13 -0500
Hi all, In following this thread, does anybody have any knowledgeable input into the question of IC 756 PRO (not II, not III, just PRO) vs. FT1KMP/MkV? I'd love to hear from someone who actually has
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00015.html (9,222 bytes)

111. Re: [CQ-Contest] FD observations and suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:49:37 -0500
I can't help but think that maybe it's just us who sees FD as an opportunity for some serious contesting. My experience in FD suggests that sentiment is not shared by the majority. The last time I dr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00328.html (10,589 bytes)

112. Re: [CQ-Contest] FD observations and suggestion (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:15:56 -0500
Hi Mike Your point is well-taken, however, I don't think anybody here is advocating a 'berating' of anybody. It never hurts to gently persuade folk to choose the right path, even if just by example.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-06/msg00345.html (12,430 bytes)

113. Re: [CQ-Contest] Uniques (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:08 -0500
Has something changed? AFAIK, uniques do NOT get removed. They are merely pointed out as they SUGGEST a busted or NIL QSO. Bad and NIL QSOs do get removed, but I believe uniques are left in, as there
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00179.html (9,701 bytes)

114. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules forHQstnsin IARUcontest ? (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:36:26 -0500
My .02 starts with a couple questions: 1. To what extent do non-HQ stations compete with HQ stations? (Not at all, as far as I can see.) 2. To what extent do HQ stations really intend to compete with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00213.html (14,017 bytes)

115. [CQ-Contest] ft-1000 (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:17:30 -0500
Hi all, What can anyone tell me about the FT-1000 (no D, no MP, no MK V, just the FT-1000)? What made a D a D? How good was the basic radio? Thanks and 73, Kelly ve4xt _______________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00359.html (6,291 bytes)

116. Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating by M/S - 3 QSO "penalty" (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:12:19 -0500
Penalties for inaccuracy only punish the inaccurate, which is the way it should be. 73, kelly ve4xt -- Original Message -- From: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com> Se
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00490.html (11,425 bytes)

117. Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating by M/S - 3 QSO "penalty" by K3BU (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:13:47 -0500
Gord, As are others on the list, I'm really at a loss for what it is you are trying to say here. If you were to determine score, you'd take what you think are valid QSO points, mult them by the multi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00515.html (10,897 bytes)

118. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO1R vs. SO2R (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:49:13 -0500
I don't dispute the 40 per cent advantage claimed by AA5AU, but to even suggest that same 40 per cent advantage carries over into operator-decoded modes is, I think, misleading. There is an advantage
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00601.html (13,642 bytes)

119. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technique (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 20:46:53 -0500
The question of losing a run frequency isn't dependent on the 1R vs 2R question: it's the same. If you leave a frequency long enough that a reasonably courteous op feels no compunction about calling
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00077.html (8,830 bytes)

120. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R Technique (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:58:43 -0500
Plus, it presupposes that SO2R ops are worthy of special consideration. This isn't a slag against SO2R, as I'm sure most SO2R ops would agree that their run frequency isn't any more guaranteed by vi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-08/msg00094.html (8,881 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu