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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+SS\-LOG\s+Super\-Check\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: lu5cw@geocities.com (LU5CW Ernesto Grueneberg); Date: Mon Feb 8 20:52:39 1999; OK, let´s say this is a sending error, I guess you have almost the same amount of this kind of error as anybody else. So, there´s no point in your worry. 73 Ernesto Grueneberg - LU5CW (e; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-02/msg00034.html (7,563 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: lu5cw@geocities.com (LU5CW Ernesto Grueneberg); Date: Mon Feb 8 20:52:44 1999; I disagree. I feel the guys trying to get a pin, certificate, improve last year´s score want it to be fair. They can buy a pin or print their own certificates, the fun is doing it the right wa; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-02/msg00035.html (10,901 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: K5GA@aol.com (K5GA@aol.com); Date: Sat Mar 6 10:14:34 1999; I just got the answers back from Tree for my SS CW operation at WX0B. It was quite interesting, but I have some personal observations that I want to share with the masses. However, before doing so, e; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00055.html (9,641 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: thompson@mindspring.com (thompson@mindspring.com); Date: Sat Mar 6 16:30:36 1999; I agree with K5GA that there is too much Close checking of logs in many contests and that the fun of contesting is being taken away. There needs to be a balance of checking so that if close checking; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00058.html (8,849 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: w4an@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, W4AN); Date: Sat Mar 6 17:53:13 1999; Totally disagree and I'm very surprised that someone of your experience and talent would have this opinion. The SS, in my estimation, can't be checked too carefully. I applaud the efforts of K5FUV a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00060.html (9,161 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: w4an@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, W4AN); Date: Sat Mar 6 18:34:23 1999; Disagree. When I was rising through the ranks, I never got my log checked. Then one September I operated the SSB and CW Sprints. Claimed score for both was in the top-10. After log checking, I was D; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00062.html (8,682 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: n7ex@athenet.net (Dave_K9NX); Date: Sun Mar 7 00:37:52 1999; dit to I think you missed the whole point of having an exchange in the first place then, maybe you should stick to contests that require you to just send 59(state) I would bet just the opposite, the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00064.html (11,287 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: tomf@neca.com (Thomas E. Francis); Date: Sun Mar 7 07:44:21 1999; I'd like to address this from the prespective of one of those "casual" contesters - the op who wants to add to his collection of SS pins, not "clean sweeps" or what not. I belive that SS should be ch; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00070.html (11,855 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: w2up@mindspring.com (Barry Kutner); Date: Sun Mar 7 12:54:08 1999; It surprises me that a contester would suggest lax log checking. The whole point of the exchange is copying it (remember, the SS exchange is based on the traffic handling preamble). Seems like just a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00071.html (8,732 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: na2n@ifam.com (Greg Becker); Date: Sun Mar 7 10:11:52 1999; Well, maybe not. I'd be interested to see how many of the stations whose exchanges I "busted" also had others do the same thing. For example, if I busted KA2AHW's check as 78 instead of 88, I wonder; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00073.html (10,200 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Sun Mar 7 15:13:23 1999; want to dit to Why -- I was charged a penalty only for busted calls, not for errors in exchanges. Seems reasonable, cuz you get a couple of chances at the callsign in SS. I think it's high time that; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00075.html (9,082 bytes)
12. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: dhenderson@arrl.org (Henderson, Dan N1ND); Date: Sun Mar 7 14:46:36 1999; Hi gang... While I'll let ya'll debate the more or less issue,, let me make one point. The increased log checking does not affect the Cups for Sweeps or Pins. We will continue to issue those based on; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00084.html (8,366 bytes)
13. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: slazar19@sgi.net (Spencer Lazar); Date: Mon Mar 8 16:57:09 1999; Contesters, With the advent of the new logging procedures I suggest on all summaries each enterant declare if he is a competitor or a participant. The paricipants will eligible for pins & cups withou; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00126.html (8,075 bytes)
14. [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1): Author: froberts@pe.net (Fred Roberts); Date: Wed Mar 10 15:45:56 1999; Hi Have been reading this thread and have been interested in how several have postulated the impact on the "low scorer", whether a part-timer or someone with lesser CW skills. I am a bonifide "lesser; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00193.html (9,879 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]