I've been giving this some thought. There has been a demand, on and off for quite some time from some, for the ARRL to automatically give awards credit based on submitted contest logs that match up.
I've been giving this some thought. There has been a demand, on and off for quite some time from some, for the ARRL to automatically give awards credit based on submitted contest logs that match up.
What "loss of revenue" for the ARRL? Can't we discuss this without the snide little quips? The irony of that as far back as the late 1950's, possibly the early '60's, the ARRL DID award DXCC credits
Pete, I too was a beta-tester for LotW. Is the security for it rather on the high side? Yes. I've heard many people say that LotW is more secure than their on-line banking or credit card services...
Not that I'm trying to defend the DARC's action, just curious... Are the WAEDC participants allowed to work stations outside of IARU R1 "split" on 40? And have they dropped the rule insisting that th
I would think that if a given station's clock was off, be it by a minute or 5 or 10, all of it's QSO's would also be off. So if it appears, when matching logs up, that QQ1Q was consistently off by 2
Why not? The essence of the "10 minute rule" -- be it as little as 2 minutes or as many as 30 -- is to ensure that an M/S or M/2 station actually be an M/S or M/2. Otherwise, a self-appointed would-b
Sorry Larry, but the fact remains that several Multi-Multi stations in different contests got caught trying to get around the spirit, if not the letter, of the Multi-Single category. I agree in princ
C'mon Randy, that's an easy one. A multi-single station can only have one operational station (single transceiver, or transmitter/receiver combo) on the air either listening or transmitting at any on
And this is exactly the problem. Nit pick and search for loopholes, all for reasons to really run a M/2 or M/M under the guise of an M/S/ One radio on the air at a time... that is, for a given period
Fine. I wasn't active at the time, so if the original intent of the CQ WW M/S category was to allow a "multiplier hunting" station, so be it -- for that contest. I'm not looking for a "straw man" to
So if I'm understanding you correctly Marty, what you're basically saying is that if the rules get changed after the fact (in this case in particular, after Dave has built his contest station and ope
Fair enough. I will say this about the rule -- both as it was originally presented and as it now appears on the web site: I understand the reasoning behind it. I understand the situation's it's meant
No, I think he's saying that simplifying the Multi-Single to mean SINGLE transmitter -- which I read as no mult station(s), and no octopi or lockouts time-slicing or other gimmicks to try and use two
Ward, There's no, ah, "contest." If the 2009 running of it is the 45th annual California QSO Party... and the 2009 running is the 52nd annual Pennsylvania QSO party(*)... c'mon, it's not even close.
"Cool?" It would be total chaos. Can you imagine what would happen when, say, someone is running LSB on 7258 kHz while someone else is running USB on 7255 kHz? We're not just talking run-of-the-mill
Strictly speaking, none of these sections are "deleted." As population increases and other factors resulted in the creation of new sections from the restructured old ones, the original ones were simp
Ummm... no. Close, but wrong analogy. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, as it split into two new countries (entities). A better analogy from the DXCC world would be Serbia. Once upon a time, that count
You're arguing with the wrong person on whether or not the Czech Republic should have been considered the "successor" entity to Czechoslovakia. Take that up with the DXCC desk or the DXAC. The fact r
Three words: Strategy. Abuse Prevention. The first is obvious. The second... well, without something like the 10 minute rule in place, what's to stop some ethically challenged operators from having m