Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:ve4xt@mts.net: 348 ]

Total 348 documents matching your query.

221. Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:30:05 -0600
is The short answer is that multioperator is about more than merely receiving spotting assistance. When you're multiop, you have more than one person who can rotate through the chair, keeping the on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00578.html (10,139 bytes)

222. Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:22:54 -0600
Acutally, there is a difference: SO (A): it`s still just one person who`s butt`s in the chair. He has no relief operators for pee breaks, nutrition breaks or sleep. A true multi-single can rotate as
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00585.html (10,249 bytes)

223. Re: [CQ-Contest] cheating with packet (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:53:58 -0600
Hi all, In another private email with my Irish friend, it became clear that a distinction needs to be made: If you are using this thread as an opportunity to rail against packet, that's one thing. I'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00595.html (12,388 bytes)

224. Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating with Packet (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:27:00 -0600
Hi David, Unfortunately, getting rid of Telnet would be like trying to get rid of the Internet. The problem isn't that people use spots, it's that some, a minority perhaps, use them and don't claim t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00607.html (10,018 bytes)

225. Re: [CQ-Contest] SPRINT Contest Format (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:22:48 -0600
The following should in no way be construed as an argument against the QSY rule or should be seen in any way as an attempt to discredit it, but... The QSY rule is a double-edged sword for Little Pist
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00680.html (9,639 bytes)

226. Re: [CQ-Contest] SPRINT Contest Format (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:39:26 -0600
Hi Mike, That would be interesting: antennas would still make the difference, which is a good thing. And because of a previous post to which I responded privately, I wish to reiterate: I do not inten
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-12/msg00694.html (12,295 bytes)

227. Re: [CQ-Contest] Getscores.org Changes/Improvements... (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:24 -0600
With all due respect to everyone involved, I'm no more convinced today that getscores is an instrument for cheating than I was yesterday, when I thought the issue was a non-starter. Can you see your
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00288.html (12,839 bytes)

228. Re: [CQ-Contest] Getscores.org Changes/Improvements... (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:09:50 -0600
I would suggest that a more likely scenario is this: K5YYY forgoes his sleep to continue making Qs during the low-rate hours and finds himself marginally ahead of N2XXX/5 when N2XXX/5 wakes up. But a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00304.html (11,528 bytes)

229. Re: [CQ-Contest] Kenwood for Contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:40:53 -0600
The TS-850 was the last real contest-grade Kenwood produced: it had it all, great receiver, great filter flexibility, excellent transmit audio, quick antenna tuner, great frequency flexibility and ex
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00414.html (9,748 bytes)

230. Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:25:21 -0600
This demonization of SO2R as the reason one-radio ops don't win is really quite amusing. I would argue that before you can expect any sort of score improvement due to SO2R, you must first master cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00428.html (15,107 bytes)

231. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting,arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:33:50 -0600
Clearly, at some point in the path is a non-Amateur means of communication being used for the solicitation of QSOs. So that's grounds for a DQ right there. And if CQ doesn't specify non-Amateur like
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00438.html (12,043 bytes)

232. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting,arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:26:54 -0600
A slight modification to what I said earlier: If the fellow is in any way competitive with anybody, then a DQ is in order. Doesn't need to be considered a violation of self-spotting rules for that to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00443.html (15,720 bytes)

233. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting,arranged QSO's and the CQ 160 contest (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:24:07 -0600
The unsportsmanlike conduct thing is too vague and not needed in this case. The rules say activity takes place on 160 meters, cw or ssb. The internet is NOT 160 meters, cw or ssb. Simple. It's a rule
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00455.html (12,522 bytes)

234. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prefixes in WPX (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:17:26 -0600
The rules state that the prefix MUST be one that is actually issued to you by the licencing authority of the area you operate from and that you cannot make up your own prefix. 73, Kelly Ve4xt Here's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00055.html (9,960 bytes)

235. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prefixes in WPX (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:18:22 -0600
Again, reading the rules gives the answer: the portable designator becomes the prefix. The rules even give an example: N8BJQ/KH9 is counted as a KH9 prefix. 73, Kelly Ve4xt Interesting point Paul. I
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00066.html (9,690 bytes)

236. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prefixes in WPX (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:30:22 -0600
That may also be correct, Don, however, the rules also specify operation in accordance with local laws and regulations. Since you pointed out the FCC regulation in question as requiring /w4 operation
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00077.html (17,593 bytes)

237. Re: [CQ-Contest] Prefixes in WPX (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:09:31 -0600
Since a few people seem to be taking the "why does it matter?" approach, let me ask this question: I go to my cottage and sign VE4XT/XM4. Gee, did I just make up my own prefix, or is it all OK since
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00095.html (21,525 bytes)

238. Re: [CQ-Contest] what PX can I use? (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:28:26 -0600
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Here's the deal: if the FCC's interpretation of its own rules cannot be relied upon, whose can? Also, it is clear in reading the WPX rules, CQ'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00140.html (13,622 bytes)

239. Re: [CQ-Contest] DUMB CUT NUMBER (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:23:38 -0600
Gee, there's no need to send even 1, A or W. 5nn k works. Since you can't send multiples of one kilowatt, who's going to miss that k = 1 kw? 73, kelly ve4xt __________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00307.html (9,288 bytes)

240. Re: [CQ-Contest] [NCCC] DUMB CUT NUMBER (score: 1)
Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:42:14 -0600
No, you cannot legislate intelligence. All we need to do is ask Mr. 5nn ak for enough fills and he'll eventually get the hint that he's losing lots and lots of time and straighten out. 73, Kelly Ve4x
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00318.html (11,044 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu