Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:n2mg1@yahoo.com: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Airport security and ham gear (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Even 15 years ago I found that wire was a big trigger for the security guys. It's easy to "see" in the x-rays and not a normal carry-on item! Mike N2MG __________________________________ Do you Yahoo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-02/msg00032.html (8,819 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Dealing with eBay (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:28:45 -0800 (PST)
True, but they have a policy: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/electronics.html Riley H at FCC responded to my email to say that in his experience, eBay was fairly responsive to reports of CB amp
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-02/msg00112.html (10,379 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why should we care? (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:42:30 -0800 (PST)
It would be wrong to think that eBay has no interest in this issue. Their published policy (which is likely nothing more than a "Cover Your Ass") addresses the issue of CB amplifiers fairly well. The
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-02/msg00144.html (10,981 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Lost leading 'dit' - summary (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:02:56 -0800 (PST)
But they could have been awake... It's too bad that TQC, ISO9000 and all the other similar nonsense do NOTHING to enhance the quality of the design. The falacy behind the mentality is as long as you
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00038.html (11,347 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] saving us from ourselves (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:34:02 -0800 (PST)
I love the minus-sign, quick QSX as well. However, on 75m especially, one often finds that the DX station has picked a not-so-good frequency as a stateside QSO is going on there. Not a good practice
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00109.html (10,393 bytes)

6. RE: [CQ-Contest] Band edge violations (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:40:39 -0800 (PST)
I have received OO notices for operation at 21448. Say what you want about them being from just some ham-wanna-be-cop, but we are supposed to be selfpolicing. I take them as a "heads up". I agree tha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00130.html (9,016 bytes)

7. [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:18:07 -0800 (PST)
I'm not a big fan of "category dilution", but as Sylvan pointed out, a year or so ago, a few of us batted around the idea of a 24-hour contest-within-acontest in various forms. It occurred to us that
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00312.html (11,474 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL 160 & DX Particpation (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gilmer <n2mg1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Wow, quite the oversight on my part. (not my first, nor my last) -MG http://www.arrl.org/contests/rules/2003/10-meters.html, __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity wi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00213.html (9,547 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu