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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Assisted\s+\/\s+Non\s+Assisted\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: "Ken Widelitz" <widelitz@gte.net>; Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:48:13 -0800; "For these contests where there is no assisted category, instead of making yet another category, why not just allow single ops to use assistance?!" Note, he wrote "For these contests where there is N; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00290.html (7,240 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:27:34 -0500; Thanks Ken. You correctly summarized the intent of my post. I would like to see single ops not be forced into the multi-op category. I would like to see those contests that do not have SOA not add ne; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00293.html (8,691 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: Steef <steefpa3s@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:52:34 +0100; I like to complement Randy for participating in this discussion. The way some people react, he must have a very think skin. Lets hope the reactions dont put him of to participate in the many differen; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00298.html (9,949 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: Maarten van Rossum <pd2r.maarten@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:53:06 +0100; I agree with Steef 100%. I have been following the discusion on and off and in my opinion some of the reactions are out of line. Come on guys, we know better than that. Kudos to Randy. 73, Maarten PD; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00299.html (11,379 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jordan, K4QPL" <k4qpl@nc.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:47:29 -0500; I hope I speak for 100% of the contesters on this thread, but there is NOTHING personal against Randy. I have the utmost respect (and awe) of his ability as a contester and I appreciate the hours of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00319.html (13,140 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Clarke" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:46:54 -0500; Here are my thoughts... 1) Make one unlimited single operator category. Someone in that category can use all the technology thats available such as packet spots, skimmer, SO2R etc... I think that wou; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00321.html (7,704 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:45:55 -0500; What is to stop an SO2R from lining up a series of mults on another band, then after a band change scooping them all up. While he is busy running the second band, he can then use the (now free) firs; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00347.html (8,750 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: Geoffrey Way <wayg@cape-vision.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:32:19 -0500; "2) Keep a traditional single operator category." Jeff, These are strictly "devil's advocate" questions I'm posing: "etc." is a pretty wide net. Should one be forced into unlimited if it includes any; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00353.html (11,466 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted / Non Assisted (score: 1): Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:20:27 -0500; I'm not sure why SO2R is being demonized or even brought into this conversation - unless you're talking about the issue of lockout boxes (or lack thereof). We have global SDRs that can deal with that; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2013-01/msg00360.html (9,578 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]