Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ct\-user\]\s+Zero\s+point\s+qso\s+and\s+Cabrillo\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[ct\-user\]\s+Zero\s+point\s+qso\s+and\s+Cabrillo\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Cady, Fred" <fcady@ee.montana.edu (Cady, Fred); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:47:33 -0700; I had what looks to me like a busted call in 10m (B4R, CT couldn't resolve the prefix) so I tried to change it to a zero point QSO (CTRL-L) so it would still be in the log but wouldn't count against; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00093.html (8,196 bytes)
2. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Ed Parish, K1EP" <k1ep@arrl.net (Ed Parish, K1EP); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:57:08 -0500; Dan, N1ND, told me to list the call as a comment with an explanation in the SOAPBOX: line of the file. You can add a SOAPBOX: line to the file just like any other line in the file. -- WWW: http://www; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00094.html (8,881 bytes)
3. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu> (Jim Reisert AD1C); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:59:05 -0500; 1. You weren't using the latest country file from the www.k1ea.com web site. 2. As has been discussed here and on cq-contest ad nauseam, there is NO provision for leaving an unclaimed (0-point) QSO i; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00095.html (8,548 bytes)
4. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> (Pete Smith); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:16:57 -0500; It appears to me that this Cabrillo situation is so confused that the only solution for this year may be not to penalize anyone for QSOs in the log, where the penalty would have been avoided in past; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00097.html (8,529 bytes)
5. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Trey Garlough <trey@loja.kkn.net> (Trey Garlough); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:39:44 -0800 (PST); There is no confusion. It is very simple. Read carefully: If you wish to claim credit for a QSO, then include it in your log. If you don't wish to claim credit for a QSO, then omit it from your log.; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00098.html (8,758 bytes)
6. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Scott/Lori Jasper NE9U/KA9ZGD" <jasper@powercom.net (Scott/Lori Jasper NE9U/KA9ZGD); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:03:39 -0600; Does this mean zero point dupes need omitted? scott ne9u jasper@powercom.net Amateur Radio NE9U/KA9ZGD/KB9TTO/TBA Scott/Lori/Alex/Arielle/Jasper There is no confusion. It is very simple. Read careful; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00100.html (9,610 bytes)
7. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> (Pete Smith); Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:12:43 -0500; If there's no confusion, then why did Dan Henderson tell another one of us to note "zero-pointed" QSOs in SOAPBOX: lines on submissions to ARRL? Why do the ARRL general contest rules continue to thre; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00101.html (9,124 bytes)
8. [ct-user] Zero point qso and Cabrillo (score: 1): Author: Robert Kennedy" <amtor@hotmail.com (Robert Kennedy); Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:06:00; Jim, I believe that there is ONE instance where you can have 0 point QSO's in the Cabrillo file. If you work both SSB and CW in the ARRL contest but ONLY enter the SSB part of the contest, don't you; /archives//html/CT-User/2000-12/msg00102.html (9,867 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]