Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+RE\:\s+Here\s+we\s+go\s+again\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:50:22 +0000
And "anything goes" for antenna size on 40 meters??? I kinda like 27 meters, myself -- that being the height of *my* tallest tower, of course... Bud, W2RU ____________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00813.html (9,670 bytes)

2. RE: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:17:18 -0500
I intended to imply but failed to specify, 2 el max on 40. Of course ... 22 meters is a bit over 70 feet which seems like a reasonable number as a dividing line between the big guns with stacked yag
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-11/msg00816.html (9,945 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:02:59 +0000
Right on, Hans..... For all the dialog on this reflector about boosting contest awareness and participation by the "newbies" and "little guys", I'm surprised this is the first reference to one of the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00051.html (9,438 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen M. Murphy" <murphys@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:05:14 -0500
Well said, Bud. 73, Steve N8NM participation by the "newbies" and "little guys", I'm surprised this is the first reference to one of the biggest dis-incentives of recent years -- ARRL's decision to s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00052.html (10,180 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:11:42 -0600
I concur totally-- I used to wait eagerly to see "k5ucv" even with very few Qs. It was exciting-- recognition that I belonged. I hate it that they do not publish the scores any more. Rusty, na5tr --
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00053.html (10,783 bytes)

6. RE: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:27:04 -00
Back in the 90's I served two terms as Dakota Division Vice Director, so got a look behind the curtain. Contesters, DXers, and Traffic guys are what ARRL considers it's "core membership", the folks
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00055.html (8,064 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: K3BU@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:10:08 EST
listings on the web. Web data has the permanence of snow in Florida. There's nothing like opening up a good ol' "hard copy" magazine and seeing your call in print -- even when it's for a measly four
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00056.html (7,954 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:54:28 -0800
W2RU wrote (among other things): the >other, I'd rather have the line scores than text that duplicates the >tabular Top 10 listings. _________________________________________________ Or another artic
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00057.html (8,457 bytes)

9. RE: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Clarson" <mclarson@rcc.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:11:39 -0500
Hey--no jabs at construction articles--they are 'webbing' those too--look at that 1296 amp in the latest issue--all the construction details are on the web, the article is just a fluff piece. --Mike,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00069.html (9,124 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:12:38 -0800
Yes, Yuri, one of my prized possessions is an old QST from when I was based in Alaska with my picture as Top Dog (husky) as highest score from KL7 that year in the ARRL DX. More hair and less pounds.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00113.html (9,584 bytes)

11. [CQ-Contest] RE: Here we go again (score: 1)
Author: dennis o'connor <k8do@mailblocks.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 05:31:44 -0800
The decision of the ARRL to not publish scores has the appearance (to me) that they are positioning themselves to get out of the contest business... They (apparently) see their future (and their adve
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00188.html (7,968 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu