Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:k4ww@arrl.net: 182 ]

Total 182 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW SSB. Mathematics (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:20:58 -0400
KE1FO wrote: "You have 2 responsibilities during the exchange - that you copy his info correctly, and you make sure he copies your info correctly." The first "responsibility", I will agree with! Pray
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00032.html (9,901 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] An idea for contest support (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:26:26 -0400
Jim Monahan wrote: "I guess it never occurred to me to check the weight of any of the envelopes." I've experienced the same situation, with the mailing of NAQP RTTY certificates. I use the same type
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00072.html (8,026 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Support (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:17:22 -0400
Don Field wrote: "As for plaques, these are usually donated by external sponsors, but this sponsorship doesn't grow on trees - sponsors support sporting events because they get cheap publicity, but t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-08/msg00181.html (9,476 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] Arbitrary rules - interpreted as discrimination (score: 1)
Author: k4ww@arrl.net (Shelby Summerville)
Date: Thu Sep 26 22:01:53 2002
<david.e.burger@au.pwcglobal.com> wrote: "The peculiar thing I noted when I was batting in the smaller contests last year, was the ONLY QSOparty in the USA to restrict international ham participation
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-09/msg00235.html (7,230 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] QRP and all that. (score: 1)
Author: k4ww@arrl.net (Shelby Summerville)
Date: Sat Mar 23 12:32:51 2002
I don't believe that "QRP" is "part" of anyone's call sign? Shelby, K4WW -- Original Message -- From: "Tom Horton" <k5iid@ntelos.net> To: <CQ-CONTEST@contesting.com> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:25
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-03/msg00408.html (8,851 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Duration (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:06:48 -0400
Eric Hilding wrote: "I guess it really boils down to choices & priorities, but I'll still vote for a "Cruiser Class" addition to the ARRL DX Contest." I suppose my "operate as much as I care to" atti
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00330.html (8,579 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Duration (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:23:02 -0400
Jeff KU8E wrote: "I think many times (myself included) we chose to do a single band effort because we don't have the time or stamina to do a whole 48 hours. That takes QSO's away from those that we d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00462.html (7,265 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W. (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:49:24 -0400
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: "There is a story (after Bob's time) about a 160 meter DXCC that was "earned" with modified 17 meter QSLs - which is one reason that 160 meter cards cannot be "field checked."
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00544.html (8,907 bytes)

9. Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] NAQP Off Times (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:29:39 -0400
Chris Hurlbut wrote: "You live and learn, but I really do think the current penalty of losing 30 minutes of op time is too harsh for a 60 second (or less) screw up in the heat of battle." In all the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00783.html (8,751 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] Bencher Dust Covers (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:48:09 -0400
While searching for dust covers, for Bencher paddles, I came across http://www.cwkeysdustcovers.com/index%20el%20pincel.htm I've had no response, to email, from the manufacturer, nor from the callsig
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00835.html (7,211 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Duration (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:06:48 -0400
Eric Hilding wrote: "I guess it really boils down to choices & priorities, but I'll still vote for a "Cruiser Class" addition to the ARRL DX Contest." I suppose my "operate as much as I care to" atti
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00919.html (8,579 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Duration (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:23:02 -0400
Jeff KU8E wrote: "I think many times (myself included) we chose to do a single band effort because we don't have the time or stamina to do a whole 48 hours. That takes QSO's away from those that we d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg01051.html (7,265 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W. (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:49:24 -0400
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: "There is a story (after Bob's time) about a 160 meter DXCC that was "earned" with modified 17 meter QSLs - which is one reason that 160 meter cards cannot be "field checked."
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg01133.html (8,907 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] e qsl (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 06:26:03 -0400
I think this "dead horse" has suffered enough!!! If you don't care for eQSL, don't use it, and quit trying to change the minds of those that do? If you don't care for LOtW, don't use it, and quit try
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00005.html (8,249 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CW vs TEXT Messaging (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:30:12 -0400
hwardsil@centurytel.net wrote: "if you recall the story last week about CW beating the fastest text messaging," But to whom will they be text messaging, in a "real" emergency, when the cell towers no
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00154.html (7,554 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] QSO Penalties (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:30:22 -0400
"Steve London" <n2ic@arrl.net> wrote: "Enough already ! Can we please go QRT on this thread ?" Finally, someone with some logic! I've about worn out the delete key, on a brand new keyboard! C'Ya, She
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00284.html (8,372 bytes)

17. [RTTY] Dayton Room (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:49:14 -0400
Due to a change in plans, I am now able to be in Dayton, on Friday afternoon, rather than just drive up/back, on Saturday. Anyone interested in sharing a room, Friday night, only? Please reply direct
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-05/msg00297.html (6,856 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2005 Dayton Forum Wrap Up (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:12:02 -0400
Gary Sutcliffe wrote: "Attendance by vendors and regular attendees has been dropping every year. Moving some of the activities off site is only going discourage vendors from showing up, and that will
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-06/msg00064.html (10,020 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] family cheerleading (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:55:21 -0500
"David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net> wrote: "I hate fake spotters like this" 14078.9 N2BJ 20-Mar-2005 1844Z BARTG RTTY K <W2AJC> According to the rules, http://www.bartg.demon.co.uk/ "U.S. stations
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-03/msg00356.html (7,316 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW DXCC (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:10:49 -0400
As with most, if not all, things in life: "we have choices"! Some are good, some are not so good! Using, or not using, LOtW is a choice! C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW __________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-04/msg00349.html (8,894 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
This search system is powered by Namazu