Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Accuracy\s+of\s+VY2TT\s+CQWW\s+CW\s+2010\s+Log\s+Checking\s+Report\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Accuracy\s+of\s+VY2TT\s+CQWW\s+CW\s+2010\s+Log\s+Checking\s+Report\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report (score: 1): Author: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>; Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:31:24 -0700; I've just completed listening to my recording of the errors in my log flagged by the CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report. My conclusion is the LCR software and reviewers do a great job. Not surprisingly; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-10/msg00069.html (8,435 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:53:41 -0600; Interesting comments Ken. I am not sure I would up for the task of going back and listening to it again. HI! Mike W0MU J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011 CQ WW DX CW W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net ___; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-10/msg00070.html (10,257 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy of VY2TT CQWW CW 2010 Log Checking Report (score: 1): Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 07:04:42 -0600; I once went back and listened to my recorded CQWW CW QSOs to hear the dinged QSOs again. For the most part, the removed calls were done correctly. There were a few instances where the other station s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-10/msg00077.html (11,586 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]