Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+More\s+Rules\s+\=\s+More\s+Controversy\s+\-\s+Again\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Dave Agsten <w4txs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Here it goes again with all the crap about VHF rules. It seems that quite a few folks are paranoid about someone cheating or having an advantage over them. I always thought the idea behind VHF contes
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00039.html (8,150 bytes)

2. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: k4gun@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:17 +0000
quote: "Same feelings here Dave, this "Rover" is done.....not worth the headaches and whining about rules, for me it was always about trying to give out as many qso's and grids this meager rover coul
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00049.html (7,966 bytes)

3. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:32:08 -0600 (CST)
My VHF/UHF/microwave operating isn't limited to contests. I love to get out and operate from better locations than I have at home - hilltops, etc. And I love to make microwave QSO's. I just wish ther
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00050.html (9,201 bytes)

4. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: "R. Michael West" <k6nc@saciplaw.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:59:14 +0000
I agree Steve. The new rules (among other things): (1) put the Unlimiteds in their own Class, where they belong; (2) put some reasonable contraints on the standard Rover Class by limiting the extent
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00051.html (9,224 bytes)

5. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: "William Capps" <CAPPSWB@auburn.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:37:52 -0600
Hello I haven't been following this thread fully, but in Limited Rover you are only limited to any 4 bands? Could a limited rover choose 2304,3456,5.7 and 10 gig? 73 bill af4od I agree Steve. The new
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00052.html (10,058 bytes)

6. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: jcplatt1@mmm.com
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:58:24 -0600
Hello I haven't been following this thread fully, but in Limited Rover you are only limited to any 4 bands? Could a limited rover choose 2304,3456,5.7 and 10 gig? 73 bill af4od Hi Bill. Yes, ANY four
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00053.html (8,360 bytes)

7. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: WB4UNA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:12:11 EST
Why do we have to have so many rules . This is a hobby and suppose to have fun. I enjoy working the contest but with all the rules it gets to be a pain at times. just my 2 cents worth. Randy WB4UNA s
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00054.html (7,912 bytes)

8. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Bruce Herrick <bdh@teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:53:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
The one thing the new rules DON'T do is create a single-op class of rover. Us single-op/driver/logger/etc. still have to compete with rovers that have 2 personnel. This was a very important issue to
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00055.html (11,540 bytes)

9. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Metroka" <VHFRover@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:13:16 -0600
Bruce, I too hoped that a Single-Op Rover would have been one of the new categories. I feel that it would have gone a long way to level the playing field in the old rover category, potentially increa
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00056.html (9,901 bytes)

10. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Neil & Heather Goodell <neil.goodell@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:39:16 -0500
"Bruce, I too hoped that a Single-Op Rover would have been one of the new categories. I feel that it would have gone a long way to level the playing field in the old rover category, potentially <_inc
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00057.html (9,168 bytes)

11. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:12:22 -0800 (PST)
-- Original Message -- Why do we have to have so many rules . This is a hobby and suppose to have fun. I enjoy working the contest but with all the rules it gets to be a pain at times. -- That's easy
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00059.html (8,939 bytes)

12. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:42:13 -0600 (CST)
My opinion? Take what you got. If you have 10 bands, use them. If you only have 4 bands or less, then enter the limited Rover class. I'll work anyone on all the bands I have if they have them. I've o
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00067.html (10,528 bytes)

13. Re: [VHFcontesting] More Rules = More Controversy - Again (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:28:54 -0700
Nah Bruce, it doesn't take any fun away. If you get lucky and beat the pants off of 'em, your smile when the magazine arrives is even bigger. It's all about perspective. "Work 'em all and let God sor
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00110.html (9,580 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu