Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:k4gun.r@gmail.com: 87 ]

Total 87 documents matching your query.

61. [VHFcontesting] Not the best results for K4GUN/R (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:33:02 -0400
This wasn't the greatest contest for me in terms of score. I had to work on Saturday but did manage to get to the truck for an hour during "lunch". Economic realities prevented me from taking a long
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-06/msg00140.html (8,983 bytes)

62. Re: [VHFcontesting] Brain pickin' time (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:36:08 -0400
Neat stuff, but to me, it looks like it would take far too long to set up and take down. Part of roving is the ability to move to new grids as often as possible. If you spend 20 minutes putting up an
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-06/msg00181.html (10,072 bytes)

63. Re: [VHFcontesting] "Handing Out" radio rules/ethics (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:27:43 -0400
I'm not going to touch the legality question because I think its been answered. The ethics is intriguing to me. I don't have an ethical issue with allowing a couple of guys use your HT to give you a
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-06/msg00230.html (10,827 bytes)

64. Re: [VHFcontesting] Rule 3.3.1.... (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:05:34 -0400
The rules, as currently written, actively encourages manufactured contacts and grid circing. That is true of all three rover categories, although there are some limits for Classic and Limited Rover.
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00000.html (7,829 bytes)

65. Re: [VHFcontesting] Handing out things (for thinking about not discussion) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:37:38 -0400
Oh now that's an interesting point. Since others have so effectively demonstrated that "intent" has no place in the discussion of the rules, we can't blame a person who facilitates the violation of r
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00013.html (10,768 bytes)

66. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Rovers-Halo's Vs. Loops (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:59:59 -0400
I sent in a half dozen spots to N2MH last year with notes and none have appeared. I don't think he's updating the site at all right now. Steve K4GUN/R _______________________________________________
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00055.html (10,238 bytes)

67. Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Activity and otherwise in June ARRL VHF (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:45:08 -0400
Good write up. The only thing I would comment upon at this time is the lack of logs from the "usual suspects" in CA. One regular member of that group did submit a log as a Limited Rover with a score
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00137.html (15,688 bytes)

68. Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Activity and otherwise in June ARRL VHF (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:43:59 -0400
I should have been more clear. I'm not decrying W6YLZ's effort. Before the contest, I heard from several sources that N6NB and the lunchbox crew were going out. Since it ended, two folks (one on this
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00146.html (10,709 bytes)

69. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] FN57-67 - KT1J cancelled (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:45:19 -0400
I'm glad to hear everybody is OK, but very sorry to hear about the accident. I hope all can be recovered. Steve _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontestin
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-07/msg00147.html (8,254 bytes)

70. Re: [VHFcontesting] sept rove advanced planning (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:58:53 -0400
Just remember that last year, there was a small Multi-op group on Camelback. I'm pretty sure it was WA3UGP, but my logs have been lost in a computer crash. They were running legal limit and really bl
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-08/msg00163.html (9,075 bytes)

71. Re: [VHFcontesting] Rovers and the Authorites (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:48:34 -0400
My only interaction with the law happened on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel. One the bridge police stopped by my operating location and started his conversation like this: "I'm not here because
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-09/msg00098.html (9,608 bytes)

72. Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover rules and criticisms (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:24:30 -0400
We go through this every single time and I can never get a decent answer to a question. If you want to pack-rove, what is wrong with being an Unlimited Rover? The answer is very simple guys. Unlimite
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-09/msg00152.html (10,210 bytes)

73. Re: [VHFcontesting] June VHF Results (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0500
Great job on the June rove. Our problems were several. The biggest of which was the lack of money and operating time. Because I had to work on Saturday, my operating time was very limited. We didn't
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-11/msg00020.html (8,533 bytes)

74. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Re: [WSVHF] [Mw] VUAC Seeks Input (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:46:44 -0500
That is the EXACT same question the rovers have been asking about the CA group. We've been told to sit down and shut up. We just live with those who care nothing about fair play and competition. Stev
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-12/msg00042.html (11,270 bytes)

75. Re: [VHFcontesting] (VHF Contesting) - how about we get back to having fun? (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:16:16 -0500
Zach, I made one comment on this subject but have stayed quite about it since then. My last comment was taken in a way that was not intended and I fear the same will happen again. That said, I can't
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00024.html (10,476 bytes)

76. [VHFcontesting] Rover locations in FM20 (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:27:13 -0500
I'm planning my route for the January VHF contest and want to ask about rover locations in the Southern end of FN20. Due to budget constraints, I'm doing a bigger and better rove that I have been abl
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00034.html (7,710 bytes)

77. [VHFcontesting] K4GUN Rover plans (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:56:05 -0500
It looks like my wife and I have finally tied up the loose ends that will enable us to go roving for a good part this weekend. We will start the contest near Philadelphia in FN20. We will make our wa
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00143.html (8,082 bytes)

78. [VHFcontesting] Success in January! (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:24:47 -0500
This was certainly the best contest we've ever done in terms of number of Qs. I think our previous best was 252 and we ended this one with 296. Total score was over 28500. That likely will not beat t
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00175.html (9,671 bytes)

79. [VHFcontesting] Oops... nevermind (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:00:18 -0500
I see I misread the soapbox entry. The operator in question was running as a fixed multi-op station. Nothing wrong with that. However, I guess I still wonder if rovers are considered multi-op station
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00187.html (7,166 bytes)

80. [VHFcontesting] Rules question (not anything to do with the usual problems) (score: 1)
Author: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:58:14 -0500
I have a question about rule 2.3.7 which states: 2.3.7. Rovers are permitted to use APRS. Rovers using APRS transmit only their call sign and position. Any multi-op station may access rover APRS data
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2010-01/msg00188.html (7,859 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu