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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+IARU\s+controversy\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU controversy (score: 1): Author: "Hershel Kreis" <hkreis@james-city.va.us>; Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:28:25 -0400; In reading the many posts concerning the IARU contest two weeks ago, I have seen a common thread. That is, the "feeding" of contact to the HQ stations so that they can achieve the top spot. Another p; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00340.html (7,760 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU controversy (score: 1): Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>; Date: 22 Jul 2006 23:35:28 -0500; I'm afraid this is another proposal that would be ruinous for HQ stations in countries with many hams that are a long distance from Europe. (i.e., USA and Japan) It would take 2/3 of the QSOs out of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00346.html (7,913 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU controversy (score: 1): Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>; Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:52:47 +0600; The thing is that HQ stations seriously compete at least here in EU. By limiting them the way you have described you take away the incentive to work own country. From the competition point of view wo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00348.html (9,356 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]