Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ANOTHER\s+SMELLY\s+SUBJECT\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

21. RE: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Gerry Hull" <gerry@w1ve.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:48:31 -0400
Bill, You missed my point completely. If you loose a contest to a identifiable, proven cheater, ABSOLUTELY the community should call this person to task (it is up to contest committees to decide if a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00095.html (11,186 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x@kr6x.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:41:23 -0700
When BPL takes hold, this will become very common. getting least even and seem should we also probably very proud of known European competitive in of such world shake our Dayton suite? ______________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00096.html (15,290 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:49:23 -0700
_________________________________________________________ I stand by my comments. Your advice was to focus on your own operation and stop whining about cheaters. Totally wrong approach, IMO. -- Bill,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00097.html (10,298 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Dave Lawley <g4buo@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:29:31 -0400
You're suggesting that so long as the same ERP is achieved that's fine, regardless of whether it's done legally or illegally. I don't personally agree with that point of view but in any case, the guy
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00101.html (10,778 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: corneliuspaul@gmx.net
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:28:36 +0200
The blatant and illegal use of super high power in contests. ... is one of the reasons why I happily started low power contesting several years ago... Actually I dont know at all - I simply hope ther
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00103.html (10,904 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: mike l dormann <w7dra@juno.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:20:28 -0800
We should all go back and read the Sports Illustrated article about DX contests, and be proud of our honesty and fairness. Period. mike w7dra> -- The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00104.html (9,673 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Phillip Landmeier" <felipe@conexion.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:39:06 -0400
Hi Bill, You could well be right. This happens on 15 and 10 meters, apparently due to ionospheric "tilting" that causes so-called one-way skip. But this was on 20M where the phenomenon is rarer but n
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00105.html (10,435 bytes)

28. RE: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Robert McGwier" <rwmcgwier@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:18:59 -0000
Actually, it appears to me he is suggesting that one is legal, and one is not. ERP achieved through antenna gain, done with the consent of your tower/antenna approval authority is legal. 10Kw at the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00107.html (11,206 bytes)

29. SV: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Teemu [SM&Oslash;WKA] <teemu@sm0wka.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:08:38 +0200
I am really starting to get sic of this debate, I am telling you it sounds worse than a group of kindergarten children. This whole debate is just about jealousy, "Daddy he has a 5 kilowatt amplifier,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00109.html (13,423 bytes)

30. [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:46:50 -0700
If a contester has bragged to you about running illegally high power, or if you have witnessed a contester running illegally high power, or if you have visited a shack and seen an amp capable of runn
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00112.html (10,665 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:07:35 -0500
Somabody else may also make this point....A 10 over 10 etc antenna system also helps on the receive end-- a humongous amplifier does not. 73. Rusty, na5tr nobody deaf -- The world's top contesters ba
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00116.html (12,858 bytes)

32. Fw: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Rex Maner" <k7qq@netzero.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 07:10:52 -0000
Quack NOTE Now this young man knows what he is talking about. So he's got 5 or 10 K that makes them hear HIM/HER to work UM he/she still gotta hear UM. Let this tired old Dog go with the PACKET crap
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00117.html (14,119 bytes)

33. RE: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: <jukka.klemola@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:49:08 +0300
No matter how big an amp you build in your shack or at the base of the tower, that does not help your listening. To log a station equals the challenge to hear the station. There are many good low pow
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00118.html (13,711 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: "Marijan Miletic, S56A" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:16:25 +0200
of stations who they feel are not running legal power and have some evidence to back it up. Proving it though is difficult. That is the real problem. Sounds like YI WMD :-) D4B has a good ears! He w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00121.html (9,408 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:45:30 -0700
_________________________________________________________ Indirectly, it does help your listening. Running 10 kw, the frequency is yours and yours alone. No QRM = better listening. -- Bill, W6WRT QSL
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00131.html (9,741 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:14:33 +0200
There are (at least) two major problems these days. 1. More and more people doesnt understand how to operate a SSB transmitter. 2. Our modern radios has far to inefficient ALC control, or better put,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00137.html (9,972 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:29:22 +0200
By all means! However equaly importand is how people conduct themself on the bands. Excessive bandwith and other types of missconduct should be dealt with. I rather see people runing 4CX5000/4CX10000
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00141.html (11,059 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:39:55 +0200
Lets put things in perspective instead. 1. 10 kW to 1.5 kW is only around 8 dB, no big deal, at least it will not automaticly by you a clean frequency. 2. Very very few people runs 10 kW. 3. A VERY h
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00143.html (10,568 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:27:46 EDT
there is power limit in CQ WW or not Im not sure if someone use same power he do can setup that record I know people using much more or same power and cant do that<< Power limit for Italy at that tim
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00146.html (16,382 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] ANOTHER SMELLY SUBJECT (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:53:02 EDT
to build big antennas but it is not OK to build big Amplifiers? What if the logic behind the fact that the only restriction as far as equipment is concerned only applies to Amplifiers?<< As it was al
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-04/msg00151.html (10,578 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu