- 41. Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick (score: 1)
- Author: "Steve London" <n2ic@arrl.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:57:12 -0000
- So, we're advocating that there should be no rules that can't be detected or enforced ? Hmmm, we better start with the existing Sweepstakes rules. Let's eliminate separate awards for the A, B, and Q
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00462.html (12,060 bytes)
- 42. Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick (score: 1)
- Author: "Bob Wruble" <w7gg@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:42:10 -0800
- amen.... or eliminate let's the do guidelines not get _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00479.html (13,123 bytes)
- 43. Re: [CQ-Contest] Another gratuitous SS-CW trick (score: 1)
- Author: Ben Coleman NJ8J <nj8j@arrl.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:01:51 -0500
- You forgot the fourth: what the judge says the rules mean. Not to mention, on occasion, what the appellate judge says the rules should have meant. Ben --BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (M
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00567.html (9,109 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu