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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+qrp\-declaration\.\.\.\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration... (score: 1): Author: DL8MBS <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:47:57 +0100; If detecting cheaters by monitoring stations is an aim (a good one I think) why not better add a power designator to the exchange like H, L, Q (RDXA already being a contest with a REAL exchange)? It; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00265.html (9,651 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration... (score: 1): Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:15:39 -0500; Hi Chris, Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking the /qrp is a bad idea! I'm just curious, however: how does adding anything to either the call (the /qrp) or the exchange prevent cheating? A cheat wil; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00269.html (8,831 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration... (score: 1): Author: "Jeffrey Embry" <jeffrey.embry@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:22:16 -0400; Chris, I totally agree. Most of my contesting is done QRP...with the exception of when I am at a Multi-op or visting a station. I have NEVER added the /QRP to my call. It just seems to be a waste of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00270.html (11,275 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] qrp-declaration... (score: 1): Author: "Jukka Klemola" <jukka.klemola@elisanet.fi>; Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:42:04 +0200; ? Has someone written /QRP is a good idea? I wrote people trying to use it will quit using after they realise it is nothing but a pain in the exchange. 73, Jukka OH6LI ... ... ... L, the to number. N; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-03/msg00272.html (8,299 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]