Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w1md@cfl.rr.com: 85 ]

Total 85 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:37:14 -0800
Fallacious arguments. We don't put our finances in public display...period. No comparison to operating in a VERY PUBLIC event. This is getting TEDIOUS and old...15 years old. Time to shut this thread
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00562.html (12,399 bytes)

22. [CQ-Contest] Ad Nauseam... (score: 1)
Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:30:59 -0500
There is change and then there is flogging the dead horse... BTW...with SKIMMER technology "anyone" can setup a skimmer receiver on all bands and record (as in recreate) anyone that is heard and buil
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00567.html (16,428 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs: Why? (score: 1)
Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:38:43 -0500
Problem SOLVED!!! Hans considers his log 'work product'...once upon a time the FCC rules stated that on air communications could not be used for 'work related' communications...therefore all contests
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00584.html (9,828 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW & 6Y1V Logs (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:50:24 -0500
God help us all if we don't get some sunspots soon!!! ~8-} If the rules (that you put your signature to on the contest submission form) say that by agreeing to them your log will be available for pub
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00006.html (11,856 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:58:30 -0500
Nobody's chipping away at anything David. Are you 'forced' to submit your logs??? Have you EVER been forced to submit your logs? When you submit your logs you are agreeing to abide by the rules as se
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00144.html (16,008 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:01:28 -0500
4. Electronic log submission: We want your electronic log. The Committee requires an electronic log for any possible high-scoring log. By submitting a log to the CQ WW Contest, the entrant agrees to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00149.html (12,146 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] Driving at 4AM (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:23:43 -0800
No...a better analogy is that the person needs to show his 'invitation' to the formal event before being admitted...in this case the invitation is the log. ___________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00159.html (10,530 bytes)

28. [CQ-Contest] CQ Belgium for ARRL CW (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:10:47 -0500
Looking for any ON multi-op stations that might have a need for an extra op for ARRL CW in two weeks. I will be in Brussels from the 17th through the 22nd. Please respond direct to Mart @ w1md@arrl.n
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00164.html (6,581 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] Operating Ethics for Multi-Op contest Stations (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:05:52 -0400
You can always check your log data and see if the 'guest op' really WAS 4 Khz away from the SSTV frequency...if you so desired. MD _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing l
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00165.html (12,895 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS (score: 1)
Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:09:46 -0400
The "sticky wicket" here is that you don't necessarily 'know' that someone is operating out of their license restrictions...unless you verify against a current license data base. Sure, if you are a U
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00071.html (12,700 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting rationale (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:36:57 -0400
Well, except at it's inception back in the early 80's the "Packet Spotting Network" was just that...x.25 Amateur Radio Packet Spotting. We tend to forget the roots of things...of course I happened to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-07/msg00274.html (12,563 bytes)

32. [CQ-Contest] 10 Minute rule verbiage (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:24:01 -0400
The 'numbered' rules below are from ARRL M/S and the 'lettered' rules below are CQWW. I like the CQ format because it allows for more aggregate operating time and FUN... Look at either set though and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00015.html (9,476 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:34:42 -0800
I suppose the whole "it's against the rules as defined by the FCC" isn't a consideration anymore...if we're willing to make statements like the "it's only 3db". 1501 Watts is as much against the rule
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00208.html (11,659 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:37:14 -0800
And THAT is most assuredly still your choice...for the time being anyway. W1MD As for me, I'll be sitting behind a radio somewhere having fun in a contest... _________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00211.html (10,789 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (score: 1)
Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:24:02 -0400
Dave, No one is forcing you to allow anyone into your QTH. When 'you' decide that you want to enter into a contest (whether it be ARRL or CQ or some other sponsor) you decide that you are willing to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00247.html (15,215 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections->Hijacked Thread (score: 1)
Author: "Marty Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:23:44 -0400
Not at all Ron, but all the discussion here seems to be on the PREMISE that CQ can't change their rules...or that there is some unwritten contract between the contester and the sponsor. We won't chan
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00252.html (17,427 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] Statio inspections (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:13:25 -0800
So...the same logic could be used in say...NASCAR when they have to have the cars inspected prior to a race. Now why would ANY self respecting racers take a chance and have something 'not right'...an
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00263.html (9,916 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW 2009 Soapbox... (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:26:52 -0800
Great story Tony...keep them going. Great to hear that... MD _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/list
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00367.html (10,430 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting? (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:06:07 -0800
So...maybe this is a "good" argument for allowing self-spotting. Say, allow each contestant in the contest the option to post their call/freq. every 30min's . (no more reports of the 'most spotted ca
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00025.html (11,567 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ban all contest spotting? (score: 1)
Author: <w1md@cfl.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:14:30 +0000
Hi Dennis...you better 'find' me this weekend...!!! :) BUT...if you are S&P'ing then you wouldn't get 'spotted' anyway... Of course there is more to flesh out before SELF SPOTTING becomes incorporate
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00034.html (14,307 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu