Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Prohibiting\s+Interleaved\s+CQs\s+\-\s+killing\s+Inovation\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:28:46 -0700
Hi Dave, Thanks for asking. No, I have no problem with that on 40 and 80, and do work split in that situation. I'm primarily a CW op, and was thinking of CW. 73, Jim K9YC ____________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00424.html (11,393 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:36:35 -0700
IMO, it would have been far better for him to S&P than to tie up the part of the band that those with smaller stations or those on the west coast can use to call CQ. As to Ranko's comments supporting
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00425.html (10,291 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:17:39 -0500 (CDT)
Not entirely correct, IMHO. It's not a question of listening or not listening to the audio. It's a question of what is and is not considered 'fair game' in a contest. Just because many were not aware
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00426.html (26,691 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: "V Sidarau" <vs_otw@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:31:38 -0400
There is a difference. A station transmitting on 2 frequencies of the same band emits RF of twice the bandwidth allowed by the FCC and the likes, while the one working split does not. 73, Vlad VE3IAE
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00427.html (20,468 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: garyk9gs <garyk9gs@wi.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:35:02 -0500
You're missing the point that he (the ZD7) was not in the contest so saying he should S&P is not relevant.  73-Gary K9GS  -- Original message --From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> Date: 3/16
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00429.html (10,364 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:10:44 -0700
No, it's not irrelevant at all. If he runs and passes out Qs, he's participating, but he's not burning several kHz (on CW) and 10-15 kHz on SSB. 73, Jim K9YC 73, Jim K9YC ____________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00430.html (9,577 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:30:05 -0600
If every station dual CQed, there would be nobody to answer the CQs, so no QSOs would be made. Barry W2UP You have not thought this through. What if every station attempted to do this tactic starting
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00431.html (30,303 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prohibiting Interleaved CQs - killing Inovation (score: 1)
Author: Tom Osborne <w7why1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:48:22 -0700
How many are able to do what these op's who are running 2 pileups do. I think not many. Can't see where it would be as big an impact on the spectrum. When you have a multi op where 2 ops are listenin
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-03/msg00432.html (11,765 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu