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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+BOGUS\s+QSO\s+RATES\!\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: Craig Maxey <ah8dx@msn.com>; Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 13:15:57 -0500; Timo, I respect your list and every operator that has operated a contest but unfortunately this QSO RATE LIST is "BOGUS". In order to make each and every qso valid, you must identify your call sign.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00059.html (8,090 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <richnn3w@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:37:24 -0500; This is a matter of rules intepretation of both contest rules and rules promulgated by the respective licensing authorities. You could read the FCC regs to require a callsign be given after each and; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00061.html (9,305 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:08:08 -0500; Craig, While many stations don't send their callsign often enough, I think that with a little observation, you will find that those on the top of the listing do, in fact, say their callsign with ever; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00064.html (9,865 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Collins, Graham" <CollinG@navcanada.ca>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:52:13 -0500; Craig, Good points and one of things that "bugs" me about some ops during a contest. I either have to wait it out til they ID or move on. Another "bug" is the use of "non-standard" phonetics. Coming; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00065.html (10,317 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:58:47 -0700; The contest organizers could change their rules to state that both calls must be sent in the exchange. W0MU 599 08 J6M Signing your call after every contact has to reduce your dupe rate and might act; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00068.html (11,017 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:45:41 -0700; Actually, I can think of some things considerably worse during a contest than someone not giving their callsign every QSO. Among them would be having a trashy signal more than 5 KHz wide or having so; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00069.html (11,047 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:01:16 -0800; If each contest Q is a "communication", then FCC requires an ID during each Q. See below. On the other hand, you have different fingers. "§97.119 Station identification.- (a) Each amateur station, ex; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00072.html (9,665 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:01:19 -0700; What I typed was not at all what I had intended HI! Thanks Mark for pointing this out. The running station should/could use his call at the end as the tu instead of tu. In SS I used tu W0MU because i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00074.html (14,553 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: BRYON PAUL n0ah VEAL <bryonveal@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:17:02 -0700; Yep, and I must be one of the last hold outs not using "fill Ins"/computer interfaced software Bryon "Paul" Veal MAED n0ah@arrl.net FCC Amateur Radio License - N0AH ARRL Certified Volunteer Wireless; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00078.html (8,967 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:54:38 -0500; George, While some of these people may use "judicious callsign rationing" as N6AA called it, none of them are examples of the seemingly "forever-not-signing" as is the apparent subject of this discus; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00080.html (12,249 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:44:05 +0600; I would like to second Dave's statement. I think the decision whether to give your call sign after every qso or not, should depend on the situation. When pile up is small I tend to give out my call; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00084.html (10,285 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:29:25 -0800; The stations at the top of the listing do not always sign their call after every contact. N5TJ does not always say his call after every contact. I do not agree. I still think this is the definitive r; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00091.html (9,478 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:40:58 -0600; I had a limited amount of time for this one so I only made 163 QSO's but of those, every station I worked sent his callsign in the exchange at the proper point. I followed the same routine throughout; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00092.html (13,886 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Dennis Younker NE6I" <ne6i@cox.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:03:48 -0800; FCC Rules Section 97.119 states: "Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communicatio; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00093.html (13,771 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:20:13 -0800; Correct - me too - but not every time. Yep. Yep. Yes, I think that it is bad operating to not sign your call for long periods. Usually something more than a minute or so without signing is a bad idea; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00105.html (10,479 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:24:01 -0500 (EST); I agree that judicious use of not IDing is good technique. To me judicious means: 1. Only after a quick, in tempo exchange. Not after the other guy has sent his exchange with his J-38. You need to le; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00106.html (9,554 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:53:52 -0500; Craig, Complaining about operating procedure is a mute point. You can believe that the list is bogus if you wish -- as others have pointed out, no one, to anyone's knowledge, has ever been prosecuted; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00108.html (12,069 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:20:05 -0700; You just proved my point. There isn't any unambiguous FCC definition of a "communication". Some people obviously interpret that in the context of a contest to mean every contact exchange, but that is; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00114.html (16,128 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <richnn3w@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:05:13 -0500; The Commission has stated that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that pertinent information concerning the identity of a station is know. According to the FCC in its proceeding In The Matter of Ch; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00117.html (16,846 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] BOGUS QSO RATES! (score: 1): Author: Tõnno Vähk <tonno.vahk@gafm.ee>; Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:38:14 +0200; I wanted to express similar opinion like Igor. I am violating no law not giving out call in every QSO and in my opinion giving out call blindly in every QSO is bad operating practice. When there are; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-11/msg00121.html (13,357 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]