Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Improper\s+WPX\s+Exchanges\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:06:02 -0500
Well, I'd say that the proper way to effect changes to the rules are: 1. Write a letter to the sponsor. Didn't work? then take it to the next level: 2. Build inertia in the wider community, also know
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00758.html (10,862 bytes)

22. [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "4O3A" <yt6a@cg.yu>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:04:10 +0200
My friends, I broadcasted all contest and all was very open. Tried to encourage local contesters to do the same and to make contesting more open here. I do not think that I have to make any longer co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00764.html (9,029 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: Dave/KA1NCN <dave@ka1n.cn>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Why disqualify the big gun? Every station that works him as the opportunity to demand a signal report. In fact, they have the duty! Yet, in listening to a few stations giving serial numbers only this
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00765.html (9,038 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
If this is the biggest problem we have in contesting, then contesting is going very well. 73s John AA5JG ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00766.html (9,885 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Cedrick \"Fred\" Johnson - WT2P" <fredwt2p@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:21:33 -0400
My radio is ghetto. It's stuck on 59. I see I haven't missed much since 2002....... -wt2p _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://list
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00768.html (9,363 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:42:09 -0600
Ranko, Broadcasting the contest on the internet was a great service ! I know of many contesters who listened to your audio for part of the contest and were impressed. However, many of those same list
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00769.html (10,905 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "4O3A" <yt6a@cg.yu>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:08:42 +0200
Steve, It does not have any sense at all. 2547 seconds in favor?? Should I blame M6T that he did better because his callsign is shorter? If this subject is your biggest problem, will do something on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00772.html (13,539 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:19:11 +0600
IMHO Ranko is absolutely right. Here are the arguments: 1)Why ENN in cw contest is legal and silent omission of the default 59 in SSB contest is not? IMHO such omission is simply the extreme shorteni
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00773.html (13,600 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: Dave/KA1NCN <dave@ka1n.cn>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Rex and John, I appreciate the comments. Here are my responses: John, What is ?objective? about signal strength is that it is based upon whatever a signal meter reads. But, although perceptions of th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00774.html (10,371 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:20:46 +0200
No, it is not. At the time the RST reporting system was developed S-meters were entirely not existing. http://www.hamuniverse.com/rst.html Most S-meters are useless for signal strength measurement an
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00775.html (9,785 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:37:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Great! Very nice! That's not the point. The point is that the contest exchange, as currently written in the contest rules, is RS(T) report and serial number. I'm going to guess that stations like 8P
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00777.html (9,364 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:50:55 +0100
<snip> SSB contesters know that it pays to speak fast. I'm a casual contester and even I can say "five-nine" three times a second - especially when I do it properly as "fini" where each syllable rhym
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00779.html (10,106 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Dave, No, that is an urban myth. If you look at the ARRL handbook (and other sources) it has a subjective S scale based on signal strength. Many time you can work someone who has no S meter readin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00780.html (9,454 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: K1AR@aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:40:53 EDT
Ranko, There is a difference here: Using M6T is legal and allowed by the rules. Not sending a report is illegal and specifically against the rules. Here is a philosophy that I try to follow: Respecte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00781.html (9,590 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Ernesto Martin Grueneberg" <ernesto.martin.grueneberg@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:40:21 +0200
I think that you should comply with the existing rules and seek their change only via the appropiate channels (lobbying, petitions, etc) If you dont follow the rules in order to make a statement and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00782.html (15,425 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:41:15 +0200
Itīs the same common sense with dx expeditions, they always give 59 to make a qso valid? 73 Peter <snip> SSB contesters know that it pays to speak fast. I'm a casual contester and even I can say "fiv
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00783.html (10,502 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "K-ZERO-HB" <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:07:10 -0600
in The rules call for a signal report. "ENN" is a valid signal report. "Silence" is not a signal report. the If the sender didn't send a report and the recipient didn't receive a report, but the log
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00784.html (9,269 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:14:05 +0100
<snip> The actual point is that many members of this mailing list are clamouring for a penalty to be applied to those individuals who disregarded an obsolete rule in WPX. They might do better to dire
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00785.html (9,870 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:36:42 +0600
Hans, it is all conditional. If we all silently agree to consider silence as default 59 signal report then silence IS a signal report. I will wait and see how many logs of the WPX participants are g
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00787.html (9,657 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] Improper WPX Exchanges (score: 1)
Author: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:39:13 -0500
It appears there were more than 2,000 stations who participated in WPXSSB. It also appears like somewhere near a dozen stations violated the rules, in one way or another.(that's less than 1%) More th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00789.html (10,567 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu