Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Dupes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Dupes\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: k4jyo@frontiernet.net (Courtney Judd - K4WI); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 07:12:34 -0600; Hi guys, I would like to get some collective wisdom on the practice of just logging dupes as they occur instead of sri wkd b4. I made 1513 qso's this past weekend on 10 mtrs of which 64 were dupes. M; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00029.html (7,545 bytes)
2. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: gary@noblepub.com (Gary Breed); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:11:40 -0500; Cort It takes a little more time to complete an exchange than it does to tell a guy he is a dupe, so in the ARRL CW, I started out by telling guys they were dupes. After the second one said "no, plea; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00031.html (8,210 bytes)
3. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: jpryor@arches.uga.edu (Jay Pryor); Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:51:53 -0500; I ditto Gary's observation. Just work 'em and cull them out later. The frustrating thing for me is when you have to try and try to get the guy's call -- then it's a dupe. That really does waste time.; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00032.html (9,406 bytes)
4. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:00:06 -0600; If my puter says "DUPE" I don't log it. Dan/W4NTI this was -- SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/ Submissions: secc@contesting.com Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com Proble; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00033.html (9,216 bytes)
5. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: mcondon@attglobal.net (Mike Condon); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:41:01 -0500; I don't log dupes either, unless the station insists he has no prior contact. Then I log it for him. I always say or send "DUPE, or QSO B4" to try to stop the contact. Mike, NE4S If my puter says "DU; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00034.html (9,931 bytes)
6. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:34:24 -0500; You ought to. You receive no penalty for having duplicates in your log, so long as they are scored correctly. However, it could be that the station trying to work you the second time didn't feel he g; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00039.html (7,665 bytes)
7. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: k4ab@email.msn.com (Larry Crim); Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:47:21 -0600; Just log 'em, Cort. There is no penalty for marked dupes. There is a penalty for wasting 3 minutes trying to explain to the other guy when you worked him, his serial number...etc.. -Larry K4AB -- SEC; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00044.html (8,329 bytes)
8. [SECC] Dupes (score: 1): Author: AB4RU@aol.com (AB4RU@aol.com); Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:03:06 EST; I usually work them but do not log the second qso. Its quicker than trying to explain the dupe. If the rates are real slow I might take the time. I have had the same stations dupe me up to 4 times in; /archives//html/SECC/2001-03/msg00045.html (7,194 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]