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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+cherry\s+picking\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: "Gregg Seidl" <k9kl@centurytel.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:12:02 -0600; I think limited-multi should be allowed to operate as many bands as they want and then "pick".Why do I think that,are we gong to tell contesters they CAN'T operate on a band?I don't know if that seem; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00025.html (6,970 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: Ray J <ray@w9ray.org>; Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:10:26 -0600; I think that the limited-multi class should be akin to a "beginners" multi op.. You could get some "big gun" multi op station that scores huge numbers on their bottom bands.. but know they are not go; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00026.html (6,823 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: kb7dqh@donobi.net; Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:24:45 -0800 (PST); How about this for a "wrinkle"... I know of a multiop that entered in the Unlimited class, but because they operated fewer than five bands they were "reclassified" as limited, although their score wa; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00029.html (8,579 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: kr7o@vhfdx.com; Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:40:16 -0800; And I frequently enter as a multi-op even though I am single op, because I disagree with the "one signal at a time" rule for single ops that was imposed when the HF based general competition rules we; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00031.html (9,715 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:49:34 -0800; This is ridiculous. There is nothing shameful in operating M/L and doing well. Stations in Chicagoland or Texas, for example, will never be able to compete for victory in the M/U class simply because; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00034.html (8,879 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:56:08 -0800 (PST); to a No, I think limited-multi is for those who don't live out east and don't want to get out-scored 3:1 by W2SZ or K8GP. Sorry - late to the party on this thread... Jay W9RM EN52rb _________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00094.html (7,831 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <ka5cvh@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:13:54 -0600; Not complaining ... just an observation. There is no way you can level the playing field with rules when it comes to V/UHF contesting, especially for rovers. Things like APRS HamIM and such which has; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00095.html (8,226 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>; Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:03:37 -0700; This leads into an interesting discussion of STRATEGY, Gregg... which is far more interesting than discussion about the rules! While it may be more "fun" to many of us to make that 30 minute 2304 con; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00113.html (10,239 bytes)
9. Re: [VHFcontesting] cherry picking (score: 1): Author: kb7dqh@donobi.net; Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:37:58 -0800 (PST); Hmmmm.... 40 minutes for a 2304 QSO? I suppose if you gotta dig the gear out of the trunk, set it up, warm it up, find frequency, figure out where the other guy is and get the antenna pointed... Yeah; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-12/msg00117.html (9,344 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]