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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+LOTW\s+question\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "Dallas and Lucy" <ludal@dmv.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:59:26 -0500; I spent 10 hours on the last day of 2003 preping and sending my logs to LoTW. They included all my QSOs from 99 to present. 1st step was conversion from DX4WIN to ADIF. Then I transferred to a machin; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00004.html (8,593 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>; Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:24:38 -0000; My ISP (Earthlink) limits email attachments to 2 meg. I faced this same problem and uploaded my large LOTW file directly on the web page. Go to https://www.arrl.org/lotwuser/default sign in, click on; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00009.html (10,133 bytes)
3. RE: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green" <dick.green@valley.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:37:44 -0500; Dallas, You don't have to use an e-mail attachment to send the log. You can upload it directly using the LoTW web site. Just log on to your account and click on "Upload File." 73, Dick WC1M -- The wo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00025.html (9,531 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com>; Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 14:10:00 -0500; Simple solution (time wise) is to mail the CD to the LOTW people. I believe that this was one of the options of submission. 73 es GL Bob, K1VU -- The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00036.html (9,808 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: "Chuck" <k3ft@erols.com>; Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:23:36 -0400; Greetings! LoTW sounds quite good and I'm giving serious thought to uploading contest logs that I generate from K3FT. K1VU asked ONE question that I've been seeking an answer for - and as of yet have; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00292.html (11,921 bytes)
6. RE: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: "Thomas Horton" <k5iid@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:45:21 -00; Chuck, I have been uploading logs but I am still sending out paper cards everyday. Personally, I really don't think LoTW will really replace QSLs. Some,yes, all, no! 73, Tom K5IID yet make the return; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00293.html (11,817 bytes)
7. RE: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green" <dick.green@valley.net>; Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:42:14 -0400; Chuck, First, I don't think LoTW will reduce your chances of getting a paper QSL, as long as you send an SASE. I have to believe that the vast majority of hams will recognize and respect your cost an; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00298.html (14,332 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: k8gt@twmi.rr.com; Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:31:37 -0400; Greetings, I agree completely, Chuck. I also am a "tangible" QSL card collector and have wondered the same thing. I do know some contesters that either don't QSL or do not want to, and LoTW is the pe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00313.html (12,189 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:33:18 -0400; Hi Chuck: I assume the question from me that you were referring to was the LoTW COST ISSUE. I have been giving this some thought. I think you are correct about the ARRL waiting until they get as many; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00322.html (14,848 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: K4SB <k4sb@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:38:47 +0000; -- Bob has pretty well nailed this down. But, EQSLs are worthless for any award I am aware of. Yet, 17.5 cents at their cheapest price may be a bargain when compared to the postage to a DX station,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00334.html (11,162 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>; Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:42:02 -0600; Their idiotic rules for registering are hurting a lot of DX stations. I simply fail to understand why a key could not be obtained by a robot reply to the station sending the request. Because that doe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00349.html (10,853 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:14:28 -0700; _________________________________________________________ The ARRL wasn't always like they are now. Some of us old guys miss those days. -- Bill, W7TI -- The world's top contesters battle it out in F; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00351.html (8,095 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: Chuck <discreetly_confidential@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:32:42 -0700 (PDT); Hi Bob, The question about cost was just in passing reference to my supposition as to when they'd release it. Since they have, the question is answered, for me. My question had more to do with the im; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00378.html (10,884 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW question (score: 1): Author: "Hans K0HB" <K-Zero-HB@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:23:14 +0100; Noticed at the eQSL web site that they have a new service " We have added a new Contest Room to our Chat facility, so you can find people you want to work during contests." Wonder if contest sponsor; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00387.html (8,542 bytes)
15. [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:59:57 -0000; How far back are you going to upload logs to LOTW? I definitely don't want to do old paper logs. And converting old ct-7/8 logs then signing them for my old call seems like a lot of work, and for at; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00445.html (8,289 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>; Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:51:00 -0000; I have been reading LOTW questions & comments on several mailing lists and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I know a guy who live 5 miles from me who is going to upload everything from 1945. He; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00453.html (9,927 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>; Date: 28 Dec 2003 16:38:32 -0600; FWIW my computer log contains every DX QSO that got QSLd, going back to KZ5FBN on 1973-11-22. Those QSOs are in my LOTW logs. The oldest QSO that's been confirmed on LOTW was with KL7NO on 1979-12-11; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00463.html (7,945 bytes)
18. RE: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:16:57 -0000; Thanks for all the responses. From all the comments, and after comparing the last buro shipment I got for ky1h (small envelope) to the last one for k1ttt (large box) I decided to do all of the k1ttt; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00467.html (9,823 bytes)
19. RE: [CQ-Contest] LOTW question (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:46:15 -0500; Like Doug, all of my "hard copy" QSLs have been uploaded to LotW. I have (had?) been entering the old paper logs going back to 1976 but am beginning to doubt that there is enough of a payoff to justi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-12/msg00468.html (9,261 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]