Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+third\-party\s+communications\s+in\s+DX\s+contests\s+$was\:KU1CW\s+location$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+third\-party\s+communications\s+in\s+DX\s+contests\s+$was\:KU1CW\s+location$\s*$/: 1 ]

Total 1 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] third-party communications in DX contests (was:KU1CW location) (score: 1): Author: <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:19:00 +0000; OK, heres my take as it applied to US stations. If you cut through all the verbiage, a remote operator is directly equivalent to the third party in a phone patch (remember those?). When you look at i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00138.html (9,150 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 1
Page: [1]