Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Re\:\s+Score\s+Reduction\s+Penalties\s+Are\s+Good\s+Policy\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Re\:\s+Score\s+Reduction\s+Penalties\s+Are\s+Good\s+Policy\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Re: Score Reduction Penalties Are Good Policy (score: 1): Author: JEH@on.mobile.telia.se (Jan-Erik Holm); Date: Thu Nov 12 08:29:07 1998; This is all fine and I agree ofcourse but there are other problems. As far as I understand both parties involved will get hit, that is if someone gets my call wrong that QSO will not count for me (ma; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-11/msg00175.html (7,469 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Re: Score Reduction Penalties Are Good Policy (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@migate.n8it.AMPR.ORG (i4jmy@migate.n8it.AMPR.ORG); Date: Thu Nov 12 09:08:56 1998; N6AA told that WWDX contest analysis is voted to prize the accuracy in logging and not only awarding the big logs. Well, altough I agree 100% with log checking that makes WWDX results quite reasonabl; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-11/msg00177.html (8,214 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]