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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Multi\-op\s+categories\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Multi-op categories (score: 1): Author: RGelber@compuserve.com (Richard Gelber); Date: Wed Nov 12 10:35:55 1997; 8 I don't agree. A station "capable of supporting a six-band multi-multi" with 8 operators, ought to be entering in the multi-multi category. I'm not saying you have to, I'm saying it's my opinion th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00316.html (7,350 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Multi-op categories (score: 1): Author: k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King); Date: Wed Nov 12 16:04:33 1997; Hi Rich. I always thought the objective was to "win". Not to hand out as many friendy QSOs as possible. We won the 1991 CQWW M/S CW category using four stations connected with fiberoptics and the sam; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00320.html (9,459 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Multi-op categories (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Thu Nov 13 08:27:49 1997; K2WR states that if you can field a statation on all bands, you should enter M/M to provide more contacts to other participants. This reflects an east coast misconception that several bands are produ; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00329.html (7,627 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]