Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+BARTG\s+exch\,\s+and\s+599\s+$or\s+not$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+BARTG\s+exch\,\s+and\s+599\s+$or\s+not$\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:55:31 -0500; Hi all, Are we maybe being a little pedantic over the 599? I know the rules say we send RST + Serial Number, and yes, I do send an RST. BUT............ If you then take this a step further, do we pen; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00254.html (7,127 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.demon.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500; Phil and all, We are not being too pedantic. Keith GU6EFB has it exactly right; if the full exchange is not made and logged it is not a valid contact. Yes, the RST is a total waste of time in any con; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00257.html (9,439 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: mikehaack@aim.com; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:57:00 -0400; From the my two cents department: If it was only a few stations that made the RST error, I can fully blame the operators. Its seems however to have been a wider problem then just a few, so maybe some; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00261.html (11,086 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.demon.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:09:26 -0500; The A + B or A + B + C point is well made and the rules could be confusing to first-timers. They will be changed before the 2009 contest. There may be a few extras next year ... to celebrate 50 years; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00262.html (13,788 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: Gert Erik - K5WW <gert.k5ww@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:51:18 -0500; The person I pointed out to that he was not sending an RST is in the Expert category. If he got in that category then I assume he got there by reading the rules - last year. This year, who knows....; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00269.html (7,640 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:31:48 -0500; John and all, As there were so many folk not sending the 599 this time, I wonder if a lot of them selected the wrong contest module? When you get one or two missing it out, that is to be expected, bu; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00275.html (8,210 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] BARTG exch, and 599 (or not) (score: 1): Author: Fabi va2up <va2up@live.ca>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:48:31 -0400; Hello everyone, in fact in my first maybe 2 or 3 S&P q's during Bartg I had omitted the 599 myself being too busy setting up the new features in N1MM. Quickly realised this and corrected. I did get s; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00279.html (10,220 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]