Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+DX\s+Log\s+Checking\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+ARRL\s+DX\s+Log\s+Checking\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:32:58 -0500; Let's see - W2SC had 9000 QSOs and had 9 QSOs wrongly toseed by the checking program - that is 0.1% - certainly significant. However, there are probaly 50 busted calls in this log that were not toss; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00219.html (9,779 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:54:46 -0700; step in and get it right. I am *SURE* they will be able to >make y'all happier. You know, Tree, it's like my pappy used to say, "There's one way to make sure it is done the way you want, DO IT YOURSE; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00221.html (8,151 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Rick Tavan <tavan@tibco.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:36:22 -0700; That's right, Tree - you can't please all of the people all of the time. Especially on an email reflector where "Reply To All" is like an attractive nuisance. Don't let the stream of consciousness wh; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00222.html (9,084 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:05:32 -0400; At 12:32 PM 9/18/2003, Tree wrote: The FIRST requirement of a log checking process from my perspective is that it get the final order of finish "right". I do spend some time looking over close finish; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00224.html (8,973 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca>; Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:54:18 -0600 (MDT); But there is an underlying presumption here that all callsigns have an equal likelyhood of being "busted" when it's well known that this isn't the case. Certain symbol combinations have a higher chan; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00238.html (9,258 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX Log Checking (score: 1): Author: Anthony Luscre K8ZT <aluscre@neo.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:27:39 -0400; Lyndon you might want to check out my article *Choosing Your Ideal Vanity Call Sign *http://www.qsl.net/k8zt/vanity_callsign.htm and accompanying spreadsheet Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 20; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00240.html (11,042 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]