Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Why\s+CQWW\s+scores\s+\"change\"\s+PART\s+II\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Why\s+CQWW\s+scores\s+\"change\"\s+PART\s+II\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Why CQWW scores "change" PART II (score: 1): Author: DougKR2Q@aol.com (DougKR2Q@aol.com); Date: Sat Nov 7 06:57:59 1998; Sorry for the long 'COPY' below, but it is all relevant. I replied PRIVATELY to this [round two] scenario, but I since it is now PUBLIC, I guess my answer should go public as well. Please see my comm; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-11/msg00106.html (11,250 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Why CQWW scores "change" PART II (score: 1): Author: lu5cw@geocities.com (LU5CW Ernesto Grueneberg); Date: Sun Nov 8 13:57:05 1998; Even if the comittee does sometimes remove a good contact, I won't complain. This is the only contest where the logs are checked at all. For instance the WPX is terrible. I recall one particular year; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-11/msg00117.html (7,483 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]