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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+QRZed\s+\-\s+guess\s+again\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] QRZed - guess again (score: 1): Author: mark@concertart.com (Mark Beckwith); Date: Wed Apr 2 16:10:05 2003; Nice thought, but not that simple. Many competent operators use this technique to reduce the size of their pileup. Your going away has just made it easier for the competent operator to copy one of th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-04/msg00065.html (8,790 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] QRZed - guess again (score: 1): Author: lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg); Date: Wed Apr 2 17:16:53 2003; I've never found that to be necessary. I guess I don't generate big enough pileups ;-) I'll buy this argument for a rare DXpedition, but the two scenarios aren't comparable. For a DXpedition, everyo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-04/msg00068.html (8,876 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] QRZed - guess again (score: 1): Author: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III); Date: Thu Apr 3 12:36:43 2003; There have been a number of posts to this list recently saying that there is no reason for stations to ever just say QRZ or Thanks at the end of a contact. Indeed many posters are of the opnion that; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-04/msg00095.html (9,436 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] QRZed - guess again (score: 1): Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com (Jimk8mr@aol.com); Date: Thu Apr 3 22:22:24 2003; Good points are made in the above post by N6AA. I would suggest another criteria for "no callsign" operation: How smooth was the just competed qso. A couple of "5NN 5" exchanges at 40 wpm (or faster; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-04/msg00103.html (7,290 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]