Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Here\s+we\s+go\s+again\s*$/: 64 ]

Total 64 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:18:30 -0700
This is part of my post from Sweepstakes. When are we going to wake up and sit at the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this contest but all. If we are going to have classes and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00610.html (8,174 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:19:03 -0500
While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to stimulate more activity. Make mults one per band rather than overall. Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something? Allow
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00622.html (10,092 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: asciibaron@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:07:58 +0000
my only concern is the M's camping out on each band and working in "sequence" on each band. how do they keep one signal on at a time if they are running??? there have already been comments about thi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00630.html (9,591 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Steve Root <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:30:13 +0000
Pete, I think that it's a great idea for all of us to consider ways to encourage contest activity or make needed improvements. At the same time, we need to be careful about how those changes would af
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00634.html (11,916 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:09:06 -0600
I second Steve's analysis of band-by-band conditions. Even excluding WP3R, stations in southern latitudes had extreme advantages in 10 meters that northern folk simply didn't have. I often scanned 10
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00638.html (14,268 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:32:05 -00
<cq-contest@contesting.com> This is an idea which should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be HURLED ASIDE WITH GREAT FORCE since it would effectively eliminate the northern tier states (especi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00645.html (10,066 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:26:14 -0500
Well, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. For most of us on the east coast, geography in SS is a major disadvantage compared with you guys in the center of our respective countries (Kel
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00653.html (14,802 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:30:11 -0700
How did we get sidetracked? I suggested a general overhaul of classes for contests including looking at packet and we are now beating up on sweepstakes. Dick W7ZR ____________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00662.html (11,028 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: kd4d@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:42:13 +0000
Good day all: This contest simply wouldn't be Sweepstakes. The two suggestions that seem to come up every year are: 1. Shorten the contest...24 hours is too long 2. Switch to allowing a QSO on each b
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00663.html (10,699 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:16:14 -0000
Here's a first, mark this day on your calendars. I 100% agree with K0HB. I would also like to add making a change for the sake of making a change is, has been, and will always be a bad idea. Consider
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00669.html (10,929 bytes)

11. [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "ak0a" <ak0a@kc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:11:09 -0600
I normally do not get involved but here is my thought The only rule change in various contest should be the two Radio operations listed as a separate category. Single radio stations do not stand a ch
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00672.html (9,579 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: KI9A@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:31:01 EST
Yes, and not everyone can afford to build multi tower antenna systems, but, that doesn't stop me from sending logs in...I understand I don't have a chance against larger stations, but, I do have a ch
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00673.html (9,396 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:26:32 EST
Yes, and not everyone can afford to build multi tower antenna systems, but, that doesn't stop me from sending logs in... There are also single band categories for stations with limited resources and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00678.html (9,352 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Wruble" <w7gg@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:09:36 -0800
fwiw, w7gg had 199 ss fone q's on10m this year ..... when it's open that number goes over 1000! 10m nfg on sunday this year but that's to be expected at this time of the cycle .... de w7gg couldn't a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00683.html (16,297 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Steve Root <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:01:34 +0000
That's exactly the point. The KT0R Multi-op effort from MN (currently 4th highest claimed score) made almost 1800 QSO's in Phone SS, and NONE of them were on 10 meters. I don't want to get into a dis
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00687.html (18,274 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:40:10 -0500
On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Pete Smith wrote: While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to stimulate more activity. Make mults one per band rather than overall. Wouldn't the f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00728.html (10,558 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:37:20 -0500
On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:11 PM, ak0a wrote: The only rule change in various contest should be the two Radio operations listed as a separate category. Why? It's just one operator and a single transmitter
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00743.html (10,904 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:27:58 -0600
Here's the one thing I simply don't get about the anti-SO2R argument: I can have multiple 200-foot towers with multiple stacked monobanders for every band, thousands of dollars in Stackmatches, Top T
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00746.html (13,088 bytes)

19. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Fatchett, W0MU" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:19:02 -0700
I want my own category so I can win every time. I could have the best station in the world and lose because of a better op....There are just a few :-) Band conditions will have a huge effect. I can u
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00747.html (15,584 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:27:24 -0800
_________________________________________________________ Why? Because two radios changes the amount of listening time available. With one radio, you are transmitting roughly half the time and listen
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00748.html (10,274 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]
This search system is powered by Namazu