Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Public\s+Logs\s*$/: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: "Alexander Teimurazov" <at@at-communication.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:32:14 -0800
Dear David, I dont have really anything against open logs and but if you see contesters is asking questions then I dont think its right way to ask them question I think that will be better if CC answ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00563.html (13,497 bytes)

82. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:51:36 +0100
I think the only reason why CQ CC made the logs public is the cheating issue. It can not possibly be any other reason. Since IMO cheating is quite widespread I do have full understanding why CQ CC de
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00565.html (13,854 bytes)

83. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: k3bu@optimum.net
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:31:16 +0000 (GMT)
.......... I think it is well summarized, plus who is the best to do the "secondary" check than next one or few competitors in the category. Log checkers and software do rough processing and we know
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00568.html (11,013 bytes)

84. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:26:26 -0500
A recent post said, in part: < snip > Since IMO cheating is quite widespread < snip > Who is cheating? When? How often? Exactly how are they cheating? And if "they" are cheating, why haven't they bee
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00570.html (9,331 bytes)

85. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:07:04 -0800
I think there is _plenty_ of evidence that some contesters are choosing to cheat, and that these cheaters are being exposed: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/2008-12/msg00101.html http://lists
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00572.html (10,910 bytes)

86. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:36:32 -0800
Vigilante-ism at its finest. 73, de Hans, K0HB _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-conte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00574.html (8,519 bytes)

87. Re: [CQ-Contest] Public Logs (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:22:37 -0500
I do not deny that some contesters try to stretch the envelope, and that some cheat. This is nothing new... remind me to tell you sometime about the first time I met a certain well known contester. B
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00581.html (11,797 bytes)

88. [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Jorge Diez - CX6VM" <cx6vm.jorge@adinet.com.uy>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:19:06 -0300
"Many contesters, including me, have allowed our CQ subscriptions to expire because of CQs' decision to release our logs to the public. I still participate in CQ contests, purely for the love contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00152.html (12,431 bytes)

89. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:24:01 -0800
It's a discussion we've had a number of times, Jorge. Some of us (certainly a minority, to be sure) hold the opinion that our logs should be carefully scrutinized by the contest sponsor, but that the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00170.html (8,927 bytes)

90. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:26:36 -0400
Why do you need to be so nosy that you demand to see my logs without cause? "Many contesters, including me, have allowed our CQ subscriptions to expire because of CQs' decision to release our logs to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00171.html (13,633 bytes)

91. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:16:05 -0500
The problem has been that, if you were going to claim credit for some of these QSO's for ARRL award programs (WAS, DXCC etc.) ARRL frowned on anyone releasing full log data to the public on these QSO
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00177.html (9,864 bytes)

92. [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: George Vlachopoulos <sv1rp@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
If someone doesn't have anything to hide, is clear, not cheating, honest and all contest QSO's are real, I don't believe that have any problem for the Logs to be visible to the public. Unless .......
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00186.html (6,731 bytes)

93. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:48:53 +0600
That sound like a good solution for those who does not want to send QSL cards. Publish all your logs on the web and nobody needs your QSLs. :) 73, Igor UA9CDC The problem has been that, if you were g
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00187.html (11,505 bytes)

94. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:36:49 -0600
What's the big deal? Are you hiding something? Barry W2UP -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Lakewood, CO _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://l
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00188.html (15,371 bytes)

95. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: Art Boyars <artboyars@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:17:37 -0400
Yes, this has been discussed many times before. (And it will probably come up again, sigh!) One valid (IMHO) reason NOT to have public logs, even if you are not fudging, is that it would reveal the s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00189.html (6,891 bytes)

96. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:32:14 -0700
"If someone doesn't have anything to hide, is clear, not cheating, honest..." (snip) This is the same argument used in the 50's in the US during the McCarthy "Red Scare". It didn't work then, and it
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00194.html (7,234 bytes)

97. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:03:23 -0700
Of those operators who believe there is value in reviewing past logs, some hold the view that "sharing secrets" is healthy for radiosport and its participants. Sharing your successes motivates you to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00202.html (7,837 bytes)

98. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: Steve Sacco NN4X <nn4x@embarqmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:31:29 -0400
Ed - I'd submit to you that "sharing your successes" is fine when it's VOLUNTARY - otherwise, I rather consider it akin to a quasi-government seizure of proprietary trade secrets. If someone knows ab
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00204.html (8,226 bytes)

99. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:34:01 -0400
RE Public logs.. It's up to the sponsor - Hey, don't like it, write THEM, or don't play -- 73 de KG2V - Charles Gallo Quality Custom Machine-shop work for the radio amateur (sm) _____________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00205.html (7,555 bytes)

100. Re: [CQ-Contest] public logs (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:55:33 -0400
That may well be, but FORCING someone else to share their "secrets" is the very antithesis of healthy. Of those operators who believe there is value in reviewing past logs, some hold the view that "s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-06/msg00213.html (9,110 bytes)

Current List: 81 - 100
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
This search system is powered by Namazu