Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Work\s+\'Em\s+Dupes\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Work\s+\'Em\s+Dupes\.\.\.\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: jdroller@tricon.net (Jimmy D. Roller); Date: Mon Jan 26 20:33:18 1998; I have been following comments regarding working or not working dupes lately on the reflector with great interest. I have to admit to being guilty as charged. Being somewhat nasty-neat and fastidious; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00536.html (9,065 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: wo4o@juno.com (Ric Painter); Date: Mon Jan 26 22:19:58 1998; Jimmy, your choice to work dupes is a wise one. Like you, I hated dupes in my log because I didn't see the better way. Thanks to Doug/W9WI for explaining the pros and cons to working/logging dupes ca; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00537.html (8,541 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: aa4ga@contesting.com (Lee Hiers, AA4GA); Date: Tue Jan 27 03:06:39 1998; Well, you picked a great contest for illustrating why you should log the dupes! We always experience much greater dupe rates in the 160 contests. I suspect the added noise is the culprit. Repeat your; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00538.html (7,835 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: bogus@does.not.exist.com (bogus@does.not.exist.com); Date: Mon Jan 26 23:03:45 1998; << Several calls on the dupe list belonged to what I consider to be contest veterans that I have worked many times over the years. This group ought to know better, but obviously do not or don't care!; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00539.html (8,163 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: n7ex@athenet.net (Dave_K9NX); Date: Wed Jan 28 03:41:02 1998; Another reason to work dupes (I hope) is the abundance of similiar call these days. K9DX and myself (K9NX) were both very active during the contest. Thats only one "dit" difference. Almost a dozen st; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00552.html (7,615 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: laurence@lsil.com (Laurence Mason); Date: Wed Jan 28 19:18:11 1998; What would be really interesting is to contact the people after the contest who you have logged as dupes and determine the cause. Is it - as we all assume - that they do not have a good dupe sheet or; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00574.html (7,279 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] Work 'Em Dupes... (score: 1): Author: bogus@does.not.exist.com (bogus@does.not.exist.com); Date: Mon Jan 26 23:03:45 1998; << Several calls on the dupe list belonged to what I consider to be contest veterans that I have worked many times over the years. This group ought to know better, but obviously do not or don't care!; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1998-01/msg00643.html (8,180 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]