Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+Rule\s+Change\s+for\s+Remote\s+Ops\s+\-\s+Always\s+Multi\-op\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+Rule\s+Change\s+for\s+Remote\s+Ops\s+\-\s+Always\s+Multi\-op\?\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op? (score: 1): Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:59:52 +0100; And the logic behind this statement is ????? 73, Jim K9YC OK - consider this. HOW we choose to communicate with one another is what defines us as ham-radio operators, and what defines our activities; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-07/msg00190.html (11,834 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op? (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:27:42 -0700; may be using a station remotely (maybe even one they have built, and even built the remote control system for) BECAUSE where they live is surrounded by RF noise! Or because deed restrictions prohibit; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-07/msg00196.html (11,791 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op? (score: 1): Author: Mark van Wijk <pa5mw@home.nl>; Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:18:41 +0200 (CEST); Which I understand and respect. Local RF noise here too is a major bitch. So is my neighbors wife. But during the contests the operator should travel to the remote site and put his but in that chair.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-08/msg00021.html (8,512 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 23
Page: [1] [2]