Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+New\s+VHF\+\s+contest\s+rules\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+New\s+VHF\+\s+contest\s+rules\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules (score: 1): Author: kr7o@vhfdx.com; Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:18:06 -0800; I am going to try and stay out of the rover issue. There were some good changes made, and some...... (I will stop here). Time will tell. Out on the west coast, but the limited-multi fixed class kille; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00021.html (7,436 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules (score: 1): Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49:42 -0500; All: While I acknowledge the point Robert is trying to make, there is a dark "other" side to this which I think gets ignored. Allowing a "limited multi" station with more than four bands to operate t; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00022.html (9,807 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules (score: 1): Author: aa4zz@aol.com; Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:40:35 -0500; ?I know of no time (at least here in the SE) where a 1296 score would ever approach the score of? well equipped 222 station. I also think a pass from 1296 to a lower band very unlikely and certainly; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00023.html (11,816 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules (score: 1): Author: Fred Lass <felasstic@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:45:30 -0800 (PST); In my opinion, the idea that a VHF QSO party participant might abuse the 4 band rules is overblown. Let's say that you intend to operate the four low bands, but 1 hour into the contest your 222 rig f; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00032.html (14,119 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]