Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+MS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+MS\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQWW MS (score: 1): Author: pfkski@vail.net (Philip F. Krichbaum); Date: Tue Nov 11 14:28:09 1997; The term "Multi operator single transmitter" as used in CQWW is at best misleading. Initially one would think a couple of operators could get together at someones station and share the operating and; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00292.html (7,945 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] CQWW MS (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Tue Nov 11 13:44:23 1997; Not so...see the W2A, N2NU and K1NG scores from 1997 CQWW; the KF2ET, N3RS and K1NG scores from CQWW 1996. Personally, I feel that if you go beyond 5 ops, you have thinned out your ranks beyond need; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00299.html (7,386 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] CQWW MS (score: 1): Author: k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King); Date: Tue Nov 11 22:24:52 1997; Wrong again J.P.!!! The right way to do a CQWW multi-single (really Limited Multi) is to have 8 operators and a station capable of supporting a six-band multi-multi. Six of the operators will be sele; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00306.html (9,260 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] CQWW MS (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Tue Nov 11 19:52:12 1997; Hmm...hearing that a lot lately :-) <good stuff snipped> You know, you might be on to something. On 3830, KC1XX asked me whatwe did on Sunday?!? I suppose we just don't have a clue....just wait until; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00309.html (7,802 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]