Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+48\s+Hours\s+and\s+The\s+Future\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+48\s+Hours\s+and\s+The\s+Future\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 48 Hours and The Future (score: 1): Author: Tom Taormina <tom@k5rc.cc>; Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:47:53 -0800; I applaud Randy's suggestion, except... The 12 and 24 hour categories need not be contiguous. Why not let the competitors choose their on-time based on their ability to spend time on the air? Yes, a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00425.html (8,562 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] 48 Hours and The Future (score: 1): Author: "Albert Crespo" <f5vhj@wanadoo.fr>; Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:09:00 -0000; Things get very slow on the second night, they will get VERY SLOW, if people are now going to stay off the bands because of this 12/24 hour nonsense. Do people really want a certificate that says the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00442.html (10,459 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 48 Hours and The Future (score: 1): Author: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:42:20 -0600; IMHO, encouraging the current casual group of contesters to stay on for a full 12 or 24 hours in order to have a chance for a competitive prize rather than a personal mental goal will result in more; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-02/msg00450.html (12,328 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]