Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+KR2Q\s+\-\s+RX1CQ\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:33:46 +0100
Hi My congratulations to Doug KR2Q with his GOLD LOG He dont miss even one point in CQ WW DX SSB 2010 http://contesting.at-communication.com/en/cq-ww-dx-ssb-contest-2010_qrp-category/ I think that UB
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00013.html (6,841 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: Andrei Stchislenok <asnp3d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:37:27 -0400
Another point which is take attention of Russian contesters are first place in the world in CQ WW DX SSB 2010 QRP Category Claimed scores 1. RX1CQ 621.220 2. KR2Q 594.943 Confirmed Scores 1. KR2Q 594
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00015.html (8,627 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:58:48 +0400
Amazing "performance" by the guys checking the logs of the QRP-section of the contest I would say. I have seen many dubious results in QRP during the years, but the CQWW 2010 results must compete in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00017.html (8,079 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: Rob Van Geen <rvangeen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:15:34 -1000
Yes. It is certainly possible to achieve a "Golden Log", especially when you operate >99% S&P. Check out the logs for yourself! http://www.cqww.com/cq-ww-ssb-2010.htm Very impressive operating by the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00020.html (9,329 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: brian coyne <g4odv@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:14:53 +0100 (BST)
What this debate highlights is the anomoly of creating only one listing for the QRP section, whereas every other section is divided, NA & Rest of the World.   Because of the different scoring systems
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00022.html (10,891 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:59:41 -0800
What is with this crap about needing to snoop around in other peoples logs? Either you trust the contest sponsor, or you don't trust them. If you don't trust them, then go fishing that weekend, or re
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00023.html (9,479 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:41:08 -0400
Why do we even bother anymore? Nobody trusts the other contesters. Everyone these days seems to be presumed to be guilty of "cheating" -- yes, I know that there are people out there rubber clocking,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00024.html (11,298 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:43:55 +0100
Never heard of the quaint old-fashioned concept of "trust but verify", or "doveryai, no proveryai"? I suppose that's "crap" too? 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00025.html (8,153 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV@W5OV.COM>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:54:16 -0500
Just to clear the "air" a bit on this, there are many logs that have no qsos removed and the claimed scores remain unchanged. A quick look shows: Claimed and Call Final Q N6ML 518 DP4M 505 LY3CY 495
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00026.html (9,653 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:40:11 -0400
I think we should mandate log errors for people who have abnormally accurate logs. Let's call it dyslexic based scoring. After all, we all know the reason for not succeeding always is with the person
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00029.html (11,379 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: David Levine <david@levinecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:00:37 -0400
I had a clean log that contest too, but made only 148 Qs. I was sick that weekend (turned into Pneumonia) and spent most of it in bed. Congrats to both for a fine score. David - K2DSL qsos __________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00030.html (9,297 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: KU7Y <ku7y.cw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:31:42 -0600
Wasn't it the Sprints where they always listed all those who had "Golden" logs? (Golden logs were those without any errors). OK, back in my hole, Ron, KU7Y SOWP 5545M Arizona Outlaws Contest Club Bre
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00031.html (8,588 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:22:16 +0600
Has it not started in ARRL DXCC program with checking and rejecting QSL cards first and then later with LOTW extra security measures? Why us, non US citizens should send there copies of our passport
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00032.html (8,752 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: w7dra@juno.com
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:14:24 -0700
i just can't see what the big deal is.........someday my grand kids will be going through my stuff throwing my radios away and find my PhD work, college text books from the 50s, and an award saying "
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00033.html (8,479 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:32:39 -0400
I think it's a far stretch to compare the awarding of an award on merit by an organization as being the cause of vast paranoia on behalf of a vocal minority of active amateurs. It is one thing for th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00034.html (11,202 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 04:38:52 +0600
Neither do I. Still I do not understand why can't this phrase be applicable to contesting. After all we humans are all prone to making errors. I for one have no problem allowing public access to my U
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00036.html (10,891 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:28:42 -0500
"Will we as contesters be required to put a webcam in our shacks and expose ourselves to the world for 24 or 48 hours, to the whim of any voyeur who seems to find some reason to watch me operate a ra
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00040.html (8,472 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:26:43 -0700
I also find W2WN's rancor on this topic to be a bit unrealistic. I'm hard pressed to think of any other competition with such open global participation as radiosport that doesn't involve at least as
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00041.html (9,784 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:35:07 -0400
No Ward, you have taken that comment out of context. My overall point was and is that the measures that are being discussed, and sadly accepted by the majority with little or not real thought, are no
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00042.html (10,714 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:44:57 -0400
Well, I'm sorry that you don't want to hear any dissension. But I fail to see why the number of posts I have made have any bearing on the continued erosion of trust in fellow contesters. And... since
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2011-08/msg00043.html (11,777 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu