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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+DC\s+and\s+NAQP\s*$/: 39 ]

Total 39 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:34:06 -0700; That indeed may be the case. Six more possible multipliers. Is it going to be a challenge to work DC? As far as QSOs go, I would expect anyone that lives in DC and will do this contest once DC is a m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00158.html (11,032 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@mindspring.com>; Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:11:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00); I've been surprised at some of the response to this seemingly simple question. You'd think I was proposing a complete restructuring of the NAQP. Perhaps I should have just asked "Why would this be ba; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00163.html (9,276 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:36:18 -0500; Comments inline... Yes it is going to be more of a challenge to obtain a sweep, but not necessarily DC. You need to work another station in the same allotted time period. It would add more contacts i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00164.html (12,679 bytes)
24. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Eric Rosenberg <ericrosenberg.dc@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:51:29 -0400; Now we're knee-deep in silliness. I've lived in Washington, DC for 24 years, and have operated the amateur satellites and HF bands for 20 of those. I'm a relatively active contester, both single-op a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00169.html (11,191 bytes)
25. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT); Be careful what you wish for. In some contests (like the Sprint), being a "rare" state is a distinct disadvantage. If you are the only DC station on, everyone else will have one more mult at the end; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00171.html (8,392 bytes)
26. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: John Laney <k4bai@att.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:15:19 -0400; I am in favor of adding DC as a multiplier in NAQP. I suspect it will make DC stations more active in that contest. There are almost an infinite number of multipliers already in that contest with all; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00178.html (8,452 bytes)
27. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Eric Rosenberg <ericrosenberg.dc@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:08:03 -0400; In the majority of the contests I've participated in from here in DC for the last 20 years, I haven't worked a DC station. This has, however, changed over the recent years. I accept this as one in SD; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00182.html (8,996 bytes)
28. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:35:04 -0400 (EDT); The mults in NAQP are US states, Canadian provinces and north American countries. DC is not a state. == This is not true. Canadian multipliers are not Canadian provinces. They are Canadian provinces; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00187.html (9,428 bytes)
29. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:59:44 -0400; Well, as many have pointed out to me, in my haste a few days ago, I neglected to note that PR & VI are multipliers. So with that in mind... I can make the case that the US mults could be the US state; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00190.html (10,878 bytes)
30. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Michael D. Adams" <mda@ab1od.org>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:13:28 -0400; I wonder: if radio had developed 20-30 years earlier, or if AZ and/or NM had waited another few decades before being admitted to the union, would they have been counted as multipliers in "state"-base; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00192.html (12,087 bytes)
31. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: KU7Y <ku7y.cw@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:27:17 -0600; Interesting thought Jim, I think I'll file this under the "Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it" folder..... :-) OK, back in my hole, Ron, KU7Y SOWP 5545M Arizona Outlaws Contest Clu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00193.html (9,785 bytes)
32. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: kenlow7@aol.com; Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:51:42 -0400 (EDT); Hi Tor - Fear not - I have a deal for you: I'll get on from DC and you get on from MS, and we'll work each other (and everyone else ...) and we'll all be better off. Now there's a novel idea, huh? B; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00195.html (9,797 bytes)
33. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: K6UFO Mark Aaker <k6ufo@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT); Ken and Eric and all, The NAQP Contest Managers have heard the request to add DC as a Multiplier, and are reading the discussion. As in previous years, we will consider it as a possible rule change f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00213.html (9,041 bytes)
34. [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: jpescatore@aol.com; Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:51:16 -0400 (EDT); I've submitted a simple Yes/No "Should the NAQP contests add DC as a multiplier" survey request to the Contesting.com survey manager. Would be nice to just have a simple straw poll vote. John K3TN __; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00220.html (7,904 bytes)
35. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: Eric Rosenberg <ericrosenberg.dc@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:35:55 -0400; Mark, Thank you for your response. As you know, I am quite passionate when it comes to this issue, and have been both disappointed and dissatisfied with the results after years of trying win over the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00222.html (9,405 bytes)
36. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jordan" <k4qpl@nc.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:34:19 -0400; IMHO this(that DC is a top level political subdivision) is the one single, logical, reasonable, equitable, fair (I'll stop here with synonyms) reason that DC should be a separate multiplier. Not for; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00245.html (11,720 bytes)
37. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Milt -- N5IA" <n5ia@zia-connection.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:43:00 -0700; Hmmmm. Along that line of thought the logical, parallel step is to include ALL the independent, sovereign nations within the borders of the contiguous USA. I am referring to the Native American Natio; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00247.html (13,319 bytes)
38. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jordan" <k4qpl@nc.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:52:15 -0400; Actually, that's not as far out as it may seem at first glance. I recall several years back I had to go through a separate process to get a judgment levied on a resident of the Lumbee Nation here in; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00248.html (15,343 bytes)
39. Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:53:08 -0500; The way I understand it, Texas has the right to divide into 5 separate states if it wants to. I think that it would be great if a line were drawn south of San Antonio and we could call it the Commonw; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-08/msg00250.html (14,056 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 39
Page: [1] [2]