Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Log\s+checking\s+questions\.\.Did\s+they\s+cheat\?\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:48:22 EST
It APPEARS like we have a bunch of cheaters who are claiming to be unassisted, but are using packet. It also is a possibility, but not a probability, that one of the guys who worked the XY8Z repeated
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00282.html (7,605 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Pack (NX5M)" <nx5m@txcyber.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:16:05 -0600
I think it might be time to just do away with the packet assisted category and let everyone do whatever they want. You either have it or you dont and if you dont have it you need to find a way to get
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00285.html (8,949 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:35:07 -00
This idea should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force! There are many contesters with a sort of "purist" mindset which goes something like this -- "every contact t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00287.html (7,731 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Pack (NX5M)" <nx5m@txcyber.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:00:38 -0600
Good point Hans. peek _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00289.html (9,283 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: Dave Pascoe <davekm3t@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:13:36 -0500
I disagree. Violently, even. True, but within the rules of the game. Most of the rules are fine as they stand. Allowing packet for everyone won't help the guys who aren't winning - it will just make
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00290.html (9,693 bytes)

6. [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: "Guy Molinari" <guy_molinari@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:42:04 +0000
If it is just a single discrepency in the log , I don't think that in and of itself should disqualify anyone. Two or more would extend beyond a reasonable doubt however. And no,,, I don't think we ne
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00295.html (7,341 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking questions..Did they cheat? (score: 1)
Author: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:28:42 -0500
I don't agree with MAL on this, but I do understand his frustration. I'm with those of you who believe we should maintain separate categories for Assisted and Not. BUT, I hesitate to post a strong vi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00306.html (10,399 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu