- 1. [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:54:33 -0500
- Yes, every decade this topic comes up again. And again. And again, like that greasy Cheeseburger that just won't digest properly, and keeps causing Reflector heartburn. For me, contesting is about OP
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00551.html (9,907 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:05:51 -0700
- So, I guess the NA Sprints should be extended to 48 hours by this argument? Heck, why not a full 7-day week and we can see who the real contesters are. Or, at least go back to the old ARRL DX Contest
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00568.html (12,421 bytes)
- 3. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:16:22 -0400
- Ed, I guess - like in the real life - some people just want things to be THEIR way. 73 Yuri VE3DZ argument? are. hour athletes _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00575.html (8,404 bytes)
- 4. [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "kl7ra" <kl7ra@ptialaska.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:43:06 -0400
- Yo Bob contest in past years. So from a selfish reason I can understand your comments. Why change a winning (for you) format. Since I'm on the opposite side of our great country from you, I take the
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00581.html (8,816 bytes)
- 5. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "jeff stai" <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:01:12 -0700
- I'd rather have the WPX RTTY go to 36 hours, if I had MY way... trying to kill 18 hours of break time while guest operating is a bore! 73 jeff wk6i -- Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com Twisted Oak Wine
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00584.html (9,495 bytes)
- 6. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Milt, N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:12:14 -0700
- I finally have to toss in mis dos centavos and express my opinion regarding one series of contests; the CQ 160's. The rule change 4-5 years ago to move the starting time to 0000 Z was for the benefit
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00602.html (8,220 bytes)
- 7. [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:04:57 -0400
- KL7RA: N5IA: one series of contests; the CQ 160's. the benefit of only ONE GROUP (AREA); the already advantaged North American eastern time zones. That area now has a 3rd shot at EU whereas the weste
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00608.html (8,317 bytes)
- 8. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Milt, N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:14:30 -0700
- Good Morning Bill, I have NO problem with the ~30 hours of darkness for any and all stations. I was NOT referring to change to the 48 hours format. My problem is that the CONTEST PERIOD TIMES WERE CH
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00624.html (10,881 bytes)
- 9. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and 30 Hour Nonsense (score: 1)
- Author: "Bill Tippett" <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:08:52 -0400
- N5IA: No, the hours were changed to synchronize with the other major contests covering Saturday and Sunday UTC (i.e. WAE, CQ WW, ARRL DX, CQ WPX, etc). I doubt changing from 00-00z to 22-22z would ma
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00642.html (8,028 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu