Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NS3T\'s\s+\"witch\-hunt\"\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+NS3T\'s\s+\"witch\-hunt\"\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: ki9a@aol.com (ki9a@aol.com); Date: Fri Apr 19 00:04:00 2002; Is this really going to make or break contesting? DO THE RULES STATE YOU NEED TO USE YOUR OWN CALL TO PUT *INTERNET*, yes, INTERNET spots up?? This thread needs to stop. BTW, I do not condone using; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00228.html (7,590 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: discreetly_confidential@yahoo.com (Chuck); Date: Fri Apr 19 07:13:04 2002; Ahh, well. Someone failed to READ all of NS3T's comments concerning his intent and purpose for the postings, it seems. I did not read NS3T's comments as flames, attempts to engage in a witch hunt or; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00234.html (8,144 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup); Date: Fri Apr 19 09:28:47 2002; What happened to SHEMP? :-) I agree; this whole thing is pretty much pointless. No one is going to be able to prove anything out of it; possibly some of the stations who in fact did only spot one cal; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00235.html (10,176 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup); Date: Fri Apr 19 11:23:05 2002; I had a misunderstanding. Jamie pointed out to me that "inactive" didn't mean that the station wasn't in the contest, but rather that the callsign hadn't been issued according to recent databases. Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00240.html (8,158 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: kr6x@kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones, KR6X); Date: Fri Apr 19 09:35:19 2002; The crazy nature of practically every open e-mail reflector can be blamed for some of the annoyance we all feel about the postings we receive from time to time. We all want to present and sometimes p; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00241.html (9,642 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: KI9A@aol.com (KI9A@aol.com); Date: Fri Apr 19 13:57:41 2002; You seem to have missed the whole point. Nope. Not at all. The point is it would be darn near impossible to stop packet cheats. Period, especially INTERNET spots. -- StripMime Report -- processed MIM; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00243.html (7,345 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: w7why@harborside.com (Tom Osborne); Date: Sat Apr 20 23:51:19 2002; I would think the Buckmaster callsign lookup is a good spot to start (where he got lots of his data). If there is no such callsign issued, I'd be pretty sure it's "inactive." Tom W7WHY TRlog would be; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00264.html (10,345 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] NS3T's "witch-hunt" (score: 1): Author: jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca (Sylvan Katz); Date: Fri Apr 19 08:30:28 2002; spotting, but, I'm sure there are better things to talk about than this BS. Jamie - I on the other hand think your analysis is intriguing and insightful. We need a lot more of this type of analysis; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00485.html (7,862 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]