Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:wn3vaw@verizon.net: 729 ]

Total 729 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [CQ-Contest] Sweepstakes: Should I be penalized forgetting mylicense in 2000? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:50:59 -0500
Although numerically 00 - 06 are smaller numbers than 12, they represent the years 2000 - 2006; 12 represents 1912 (at least for another 6 years when we finally overlap the centuries). So 12 is still
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00380.html (8,803 bytes)

82. [CQ-Contest] Re: 4 digit CK in SS coming??? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:53:48 -0500
W1MX is wrong. Or more accurately, they mis-interpreted the check rule. The key is that the check is supposed to be the year FIRST LICENSED, not the year FIRST QRV. And by that, so that we don't have
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00443.html (8,569 bytes)

83. Re: [CQ-Contest] [NCCC] SS Packet DANGER, DANGER, Will Robinson!!! (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:42:38 -0500
Had they called the category something other than "assisted" (what, I don't know... in SS they call it "unlimited" but that too causes some interesting assumptions), we wouldn't be having this discus
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00587.html (13,491 bytes)

84. Re: [CQ-Contest] Two callsign, two op, single station (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:09 -0500
It could be very interesting. Same station, different ops/calls, diffeent times... a comparison between the two logs would really come down to propagation and operator skill since the equipment avail
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00793.html (9,224 bytes)

85. Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes or Duped? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:53:12 -0500
Some of these simply can not believe that computer programs aren't perfect and/or that people, especially themselves, are not infallible. I can remember one time in the very early stone age of comput
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-11/msg00884.html (10,410 bytes)

86. Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:42:41 -0500
Hmmm. Albert, I agree with you... to a point. Here's the problem with not working dupes. In a given contest, I don't have you in my log on 20 meters, but you think that you do (let's say for the sake
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00053.html (11,939 bytes)

87. Re: [CQ-Contest] Little old ladies changing tires (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:30:29 -0500
Why is "assistance" undefined? Is it? That's a very odd statement. I thought that when the various major contest sponsors started adding a new SO category for those using packet, they called it "Assi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00106.html (9,274 bytes)

88. [CQ-Contest] Packet Cheat (excerpt of 'I can see the difference...') (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:39:10 -0500
Tree, My suggestion is to first do exactly what you propose... point out the discrepancy to the operator involved and await explanation. It is POSSIBLE that there might be a legit reason for the bust
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00313.html (10,013 bytes)

89. Re: [CQ-Contest] Get Rid of the Assisted Category (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:48:41 -0500
When the packet spotting networks first came into being, there was a perception (true or not) that they gave an unfair advantage to the relatively few amateurs using them. The perception was that the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00450.html (16,010 bytes)

90. Re: [CQ-Contest] Sending LOTS of bureau QSL's - recommendations? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:31:33 -0500
Mark, There's no one ideal solution to the dilemma. And I don't know if an "ideal" solution in terms of volume would also prove to be cost effective. But, one suggestion (assuming you want to farm th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00502.html (10,711 bytes)

91. Re: [CQ-Contest] Secure online QSLs? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:37:27 -0500
You mean merge eQSL.cc's electronic QSL generating capability with LotW? Bill, yes, it could be done, and could be done with relative ease if desired. BUT, as memory serves, during the Logbook of the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-12/msg00558.html (8,977 bytes)

92. Re: [CQ-Contest] A Plea to Cabrillo Contet Robot Writers (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:52:12 -0500
May I make a small suggestion? GIVEN: That there are contests out there that no longer require an RS(T) report as part of their exchange (Stu Perry and the Pa QSO Party just to name two); GIVEN: That
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00130.html (10,454 bytes)

93. Re: [CQ-Contest] A Plea to Cabrillo Robot Writers (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:59:38 -0500
Ev, You have got to be kidding, right? Or are you auditioning for the John Cleese role in the latest presentation of "Argument Clinic"? I suggested using "00(0)" as a 'placeholder' for a non-existant
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00142.html (10,646 bytes)

94. Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP SSB 160m (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:20:15 -0500
Roger, I think you're wasting your breath, electronically speaking, on this one. There is sadly a segment of contesters who decline to recognize band plans. They seem to have the mindset of "if it's
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-01/msg00229.html (9,880 bytes)

95. Re: [CQ-Contest] Life in the World of Packet (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:38:59 -0500
Hah! Thanks Doug for "the rest of the story" (with apologies to Paul Harvey... good day). You certainly brought me up short the first time I heard EE5E this weekend -- frankly, stopped me cold for a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00327.html (12,006 bytes)

96. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:14:27 -0500 (CDT)
I think we're missing a small but key piece of information in this discussion: Intent, or, WHY do you want to have a remote receiver or station? If your intention is to operate in the event when you
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00253.html (11,129 bytes)

97. Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:09:45 -0400
Gerry, You may be somewhat mistaken about the Omni VII; either that, or I misunderstand you. You say that the "remote control" is via computer, leaving me with the impression that you think it is con
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00276.html (9,721 bytes)

98. Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters and LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:40:50 -0400
Oh, c'mon. I'm sorry, but the most tedious part of signing up for Logbook of the World was waiting for the post card to come in the mail. And renewing my certificate was a piece of cake. The most ted
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-08/msg00153.html (12,906 bytes)

99. Re: [CQ-Contest] printing QSO info directly onto QSLs: hw? (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:53:22 -0400
First, regarding LotW: What? What "buggy programming"? What "inconsiderable expense"? What "extortion-grade fees"? And what "profit motive"? I for one am sick to death of hearing these types of comme
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00020.html (12,614 bytes)

100. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW CW 2007 Result W2/NP3D - I just did not (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:48:50 -0400
OK, maybe I'm the one confused, especially after reading that long, redundant rant... But I thought that Cabrillo was a standardized LOGGING format, not a standardized SCORING format. The scoring sof
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-09/msg00032.html (8,396 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu