Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Endorse\s+Rover\s+Rules\s+Revisions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Endorse\s+Rover\s+Rules\s+Revisions\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] Endorse Rover Rules Revisions (score: 1): Author: "Bill Burgess" <ve3cru@rac.ca>; Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:47:30 -0500; I have been following the discussions for a long time. I fully support and endorse the proposed revisions to the last rover rules changes, of 30 Qso's max with any other rover, etc. The results of th; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-02/msg00151.html (7,781 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] Endorse Rover Rules Revisions (score: 1): Author: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:42:59 -0800 (PST); I believe ALL QSO'S on bands I have no equipment for should be removed from the contests. I also believe all stations with propagation better then me should be disqualified and anyone who has shown m; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-02/msg00156.html (7,603 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]