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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Multi\-Single\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

21. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon); Date: Sun Dec 7 00:10:46 1997; For CQWW and ARRL DX, there should be NO SINGLE OP unassisted class, This is also my class in the contests. As for packet or internet access, I have all the equiptment fro Pcket except a decent comp; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00527.html (9,606 bytes)
22. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris); Date: Sat Dec 6 17:19:41 1997; Hi Hans and others, I am sysop of a cluster and noticed that at least one contester that enters as single op/unassisted was connected to the cluster for the full period of the contest. Suggestions? c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00528.html (9,411 bytes)
23. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon); Date: Sun Dec 7 23:06:01 1997; class, HI all. Boy it is going to get harder and harder to contest for me with all the classes ya'll want to delete. No single op unassisted No low power!!! You mean I'm going to have to go head to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00534.html (8,913 bytes)
24. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris); Date: Sun Dec 7 16:05:22 1997; Please understand that I am NOT accusing anyone of anything. As Hans and many others have pointed out, CT and other programs allow one to be unassisted while also allowing one to post to a cluster. M; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00535.html (11,255 bytes)
25. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: k3md@penn.com (John W. Thompson MD); Date: Sat Dec 6 06:54:54 1997; I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but a number of my friends have asked me to say my opinion. 1. Multi-Single in the CQWW was probably NEVER meant for 15 ops all monitoring rigs just to find; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00558.html (8,337 bytes)
26. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon); Date: Sun Dec 7 00:10:46 1997; For CQWW and ARRL DX, there should be NO SINGLE OP unassisted class, This is also my class in the contests. As for packet or internet access, I have all the equiptment fro Pcket except a decent comp; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00563.html (9,662 bytes)
27. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris); Date: Sat Dec 6 17:19:41 1997; Hi Hans and others, I am sysop of a cluster and noticed that at least one contester that enters as single op/unassisted was connected to the cluster for the full period of the contest. Suggestions? c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00564.html (9,546 bytes)
28. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon); Date: Sun Dec 7 23:06:01 1997; class, HI all. Boy it is going to get harder and harder to contest for me with all the classes ya'll want to delete. No single op unassisted No low power!!! You mean I'm going to have to go head to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00570.html (8,814 bytes)
29. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris); Date: Sun Dec 7 16:05:22 1997; Please understand that I am NOT accusing anyone of anything. As Hans and many others have pointed out, CT and other programs allow one to be unassisted while also allowing one to post to a cluster. M; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-12/msg00571.html (11,161 bytes)
30. [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: "Albert Crespo" <f5vhj@orange.fr>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:43:25 -0800; Why have more limits? Who benefits from only allowing one signal at time from a multi-single? Is this going to produce more QSOs in the contest.? More importantly, why would anyone bother to enter th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00332.html (7,451 bytes)
31. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:57:49 -0800; I like this change. Here are my thoughts. With the M/S rules proposed by the WPX contest you can now do this contest with one radio and two or more operators. It is a true single transmitter category; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00337.html (8,299 bytes)
32. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:11:46 -0500; I agree with George on this. (I just threw away an email saying the same things he did, only he did it more eloquently!) This is a positive change Randy! Well done! 73 --Original Message-- From: cq-c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00338.html (9,646 bytes)
33. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: Mike/Shelley Ritz <micritz@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:04:09 +0000 (UTC); Well, at the risk of getting flamed, I think there should be MORE limits on running "multi op, single transmitter". To me, "single transmitter" means just that, ONE transmitter. In my "perfect world"; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00340.html (9,072 bytes)
34. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: k2qmf@juno.com; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:35:31 -0500; It's called a Packet Cluster..... Ted, K2QMF ____________________________________________________________ Hotel Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online. http://thirdpart; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00345.html (10,331 bytes)
35. Re: [CQ-Contest] Multi-Single (score: 1): Author: Steve <ik4wmh@virgilio.it>; Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:27:30 +0000; Hello George, That's exactly what happens with the SO2R entrants, they also have much more hardware than most of the Single Ops but still share the same category. If you aim to equalize the M/S categ; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00372.html (8,360 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 35
Page: [1] [2]