Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Comments\s+sought\s+for\s+new\s+ARRL\s+UHF\s+Contest\s+in\s+May\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Comments\s+sought\s+for\s+new\s+ARRL\s+UHF\s+Contest\s+in\s+May\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:02:14 -0600; Per today's 'ARRL Letter', the League is looking for comments on the proposed rules for the replacement UHF test. Proposed items include: *Held in May, over Mothers Day weekend. *No EME QSOs. *Team c; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00037.html (8,593 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:06:24 -0600; Oops...weekend BEFORE Mothers Day.... _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontestin; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00038.html (9,141 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Bob K0NR - email list <list@k0nr.com>; Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:13:09 -0600; I have not entered a UHF contest in many years, so maybe I don't have a stake in this debate. Or maybe I am a potential participant. I pulled the log data for the Rocky Mt Division and found this: 20; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00059.html (8,475 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>; Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:15:16 -0700; Here are some draft comments re the "new" UHF contest proposal that I am happy to share with the list before pass my final comments onto the ARRL. My only real issue with the "old" UHF contest rules; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00060.html (12,962 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:35:43 -0600; Don - On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:15 AM, you commented: The new rules dont preclude run-n-gun operations, you just have to change the grid exchange when you enter a new 6 grid. You dont need to stay within; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00061.html (10,231 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Buddy Morgan via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:42:20 -0400; Here are my thoughts: 1.) If you look at the number of QSOs, by band, in a typical, year in and year out, ARRL VHF contest, you will notice a few facts. There are fewer QSOs on 220 MHz than 2M or 432; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00062.html (9,144 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: John Young via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 02:14:28 -0400; As a newbie (1 contest, licensed less than a year) and a "bottom feeder" (FM only) I have a different perspective than those who have invested many years and a lot more time and money into contesting; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00076.html (13,392 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:24:18 -0600; Well, the stated purpose of the committee is to increase VHF/UHF activity in general and VHF/UHF contest activity in particular. So, I guess that would correspond to making the contest pie bigger. Ov; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00078.html (10,388 bytes)
9. [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May (score: 1): Author: Drew Arnett <kb9fko@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:01:24 -0700; Hi, I read through the proposal as well. Definitely a number of changes that look very interesting. The only question I have is why no optical? The only other thing that came to mind is why not let r; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2016-04/msg00097.html (9,893 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]