- 1. PACKET CHEATING (score: 1)
- Author: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup)
- Date: Tue Oct 1 18:31:05 1996
- It's interesting that you can't assume this means the person is USING it. I was in a contest earlier this year (I forget which one, I didn't send in a log anyway) during which I was connected to the
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1996-10/msg00003.html (10,523 bytes)
- 2. PACKET CHEATING (score: 1)
- Author: ke1fo@contesting.com (Alfred J. Frugoli)
- Date: Wed Oct 2 01:49:52 1996
- What about the opposite scenario? A SO unassisted can make spots to the cluster, just not use them. If I remember correctly, CT will not allow you to see any of the packet windows in SO mode but it
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1996-10/msg00007.html (18,324 bytes)
- 3. PACKET CHEATING (score: 1)
- Author: BK1ZX70SFL@aol.com (BK1ZX70SFL@aol.com)
- Date: Thu Oct 3 00:05:36 1996
- While some are no doubt cheating, I think you will find that most of the guys in the big box are doing it legit. Yes, the lure has been too much for many to resist, sad...they have spoiled it for the
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1996-10/msg00015.html (7,199 bytes)
- 4. PACKET CHEATING (score: 1)
- Author: geoiii@bga.com (george fremin iii)
- Date: Thu Oct 3 00:10:34 1996
- Yes - that and the fact that there are more stations on the air with bigger signals. (On both ends) If you think it is *because* of packet - you are wrong. See above. I think that this points to the
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1996-10/msg00016.html (26,692 bytes)
- 5. PACKET CHEATING (score: 1)
- Author: DL1IAO@sugarland.ampr.org (DL1IAO@sugarland.ampr.org)
- Date: Sat Oct 5 07:21:29 1996
- .But what happens if you lose your packet link during the contest? However, I still worry much more about people abusing the SO entry. I know at least one 'serious' lowband contester around here who
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1996-10/msg00037.html (7,186 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu