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.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:29:20 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I disagree. The second radio allows you to listen during 100% of the contest, and on other bands if you like. No amount of antenna or amplifi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00749.html (10,337 bytes)

22. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:04:02 -0500
Bill, It's no different than we did in the late 70s/early 80s with second receivers, or heaven forbid, two complete C-lines. Nobody talked much about it but listening for multipliers/openings on othe
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00750.html (10,064 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Bullon" <kc5ajx@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:27:24 +0000
--Original Message Follows-- From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com> Reply-To: dezrat1242@ispwest.com To: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@mac.com> CC: ak0a <ak0a@kc.rr.com>, CQ-Contest <CQ-Contest@contesting.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00751.html (10,890 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:29:36 -0800
_________________________________________________________ SO2R. You're confusing how many boxes are on the desk with how many receivers there are. Those rigs have two receivers. The defining element
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00752.html (10,198 bytes)

25. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Fatchett, W0MU" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:01:53 -0700
So I guess with this logic if you are able to transmit to an antenna on a 100ft tower you should be in a different class than the guy with a dipole and a guy with a 200 ft tower? Why is SO2R being si
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00753.html (11,580 bytes)

26. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Bullon" <kc5ajx@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:26:35 +0000
Hey Mike I agree with you. We have to many catagories in contests. The FCC narrowed down the license class now we need to narrow down the contest classes. Single op low power ( everyone where the pow
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00754.html (13,549 bytes)

27. [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "KL7RA" <kl7ra@ptialaska.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:39:25 -0800
SO2R is really more an acquired skill then just cobbling together the hardware. My guess is the best way to beat the SO2R guy in your neighborhood is to learn this skill as well. Nothing about contes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00756.html (10,063 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy <i4jmy.mauri@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:25:09 +0100
This concept is wise and should have been adopted, but such an idea implies mind flexibility and will to learn, as well as the real understanding of the word "competition". Reality is actually differ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00771.html (10,733 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:03:47 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I am glad to see the SO2R folks have "mind flexibility" and understand the word "competition". Flexing their minds, they will now understand
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00775.html (10,977 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:10:54 -0500
Not to belittle the Mexcan RTTY contest, but I don't think it's looked upon as a trend setter :.) WAE combines SOA with SO, and that hasn't caught on either. There is NO way to level the playing fiel
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00776.html (10,092 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "ak0a" <ak0a@kc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:28:20 -0600
I agree with you Bill. the only people who are against this are the SO2R ops. Why? I cant figure out. What are they scared of? -- Original Message -- From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242@ispwest.com> To:
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00777.html (12,399 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Mirko Sibilja" <s57ad@amis.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:33:56 +0200
RTTY contest, held the The other one is SCC RTTY Championship, sponsored by Slovenia Contest Club, with its Assisted (or, better to say, Expert or Unlimited) category, which allows use of two radios,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00779.html (10,955 bytes)

33. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:12:25 -0500
You are 100% dead wrong ... I do not do SO2R but have absolutely no problem understanding that a better equipped station with a more proficient operator might choose to have a second rig on one band
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00780.html (10,623 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:27 -0600
Joe, you echo my argument I circulated on Friday about tower height, and you have probably stated it better than I. Thank you for supporting the viewpoint. If we can get enough serious contesters to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00787.html (12,598 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: i4jmy <i4jmy.mauri@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:19:22 +0100
Ability to use a second radio is totally in the range of plain field. Everyone can try doing it,although not everyone will be able to succed and get benefits. This doesn't apply with amateur radio. S
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00788.html (10,980 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "ak0a" <ak0a@kc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:27:43 -0600
Tower heights and skill has nothing to do with comparison. When I hear a SO2R calling CQ on two different bands at the same time and working stations at the same time, there is something wrong with t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00790.html (13,593 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:31:52 -0800
_________________________________________________________ You're saying that as if it were proven fact. Can you give some evidence? My *opinion* is just the opposite. Even out here on the west coast,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00791.html (10,402 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:07:08 -0800
<snip> _________________________________________________________ Ok, here's a subject for discussion: How about re-doing contest classes entirely? I'm suggesting just two basic classes, Limited and U
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00792.html (10,926 bytes)

39. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:19:12 -0500
If an SO2R station is calling CQ on two frequencies simultaneously, that's an abuse and should be stopped. It is a far different situation than the station who is using a second rig (or receiver) to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00794.html (9,692 bytes)

40. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Barry Merrill" <barry@mxg.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:05:48 -0600
Since the 3830 report form has a check box for SO2R, if the summary posting would just flag those that are SO2R, we'd see if there really is a clear separation of scores, and maybe put an end to the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00798.html (9,739 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]
This search system is powered by Namazu