Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Response\s+to\s+K5ZD\'s\s+Comments\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: "Bruce Sawyer" <zf2nt@candw.ky>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:03:15 -0000
Here's a different alternative to the 24/48 debate about ARRL contests: Do the same thing the Brits do and offer a category where you only work 24 hours out of the 48 hour period. I'm doing that at t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00252.html (9,597 bytes)

2. RE: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: "Felipe J. Hernandez" <felipe@isla.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:50:32 -0400
I think jims comments are right on track, but that philosophy is not shared by everyone.. On the other hand, I was already discussing Bruce's idea of integrating categories that will accomodate these
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00267.html (11,454 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: K1ZM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:26:41 EST
Hi Gang There has been some discussion here about possibly reducing the time in 48 hour Dx contests for single operators from 48 hours to something else. A number of variants have been suggested - 24
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00277.html (10,804 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: "David Hachadorian" <K6LL@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:39:24 -0700
I'd like to see the return of the High-Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160) categories to the ARRL DX Test. This change would increase participation by the average Joe Tribanders around the w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00280.html (10,097 bytes)

5. RE: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: <jukka.klemola@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:24:42 +0200
There are less challenging contests for the already-grown kids. Participate those .. The YO DX contest or UBA or RSGB or SAC.. Go for it, guys ! Contests are ! The still-growing kids can have their f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00281.html (10,880 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:36:33 -0500
At 05:26 AM 3/15/04, K1ZM@aol.com wrote: There has been some discussion here about possibly reducing the time in 48 hour Dx contests for single operators from 48 hours to something else. A number of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00283.html (11,985 bytes)

7. RE: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: "James Neiger" <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:46:48 -0800
I agree with Jeff. I'm still doing 48-straight at Age 65. Maybe I'll be receptive to a shortening when I hit my mid-70's? Contests are for OPERATING, not sleeping. Vy 73 Jim Neiger N6TJ Hi Gang There
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00285.html (12,303 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:23:57 -0500
I generally agree with K1ZM's conclusion for a number reasons. 1. What Jeff said. 2. I'd like to avoid the eventual demise of big-league contesting. I'd much prefer to be bringing new, younger, stron
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00287.html (12,695 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: <va3dx@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:32:05 -0500
Jeff, the IRON MAN 48 hour is great ... for those who are able to do so. , But why not have a separate category of 24 hr operating out of the 48 hrs ? I physically cannot sit in a chair for 48 hours
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00288.html (12,899 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:44:03 -0000
I wouldn't disagree with Jeff about the "Iron Man" aspect of DX contesting. Staying in the chair is a big reason the top scorers end up where they are. However, I would have more incentive to stay in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00289.html (13,584 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:46:39 EST
I think K6LL is right on the money about high band categories for DX contests. The average Joe tribander guy cannot be competitive on 40 and 80. I really wish the DARC would reinstate the 20/1510 cat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00290.html (9,999 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Wruble" <w7gg@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:54:28 -0800
right on dave de w7gg -- The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland! THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS! http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/ -- _________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00291.html (12,069 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:00:15 -0800
Randy once again brings up the concept of trying to reduce contest time from 48 hours to something a bit more reasonable. It's an old and familiar subject; I think, Randy, you first started talking a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00292.html (13,324 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:28:50 +0100
Me too! For us up north this was a good categorie. 73 Jim SM2EKM -- David Hachadorian wrote: I'd like to see the return of the High-Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160) categories to the ARRL
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00295.html (10,104 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's comments (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:33:18 -0500
At 09:39 AM 3/15/04, David Hachadorian wrote: I'd like to see the return of the High-Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160) categories to the ARRL DX Test. This change would increase participat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00296.html (11,306 bytes)

16. RE: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: "K0LUZ" <k0luz@topsusa.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:34:30 -0500
Although my age has punctured the 60+ range, I am in agreement that the contest should remain 48 hours long. At the same time, I realize that going 48 hours straight is more difficult and I don't hav
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00301.html (15,344 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: K1ZM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:32:12 EST
Hi Glen I would support the notion of ADDITIONAL categories as long as the main, long-tenured 48 hour (no time limit) category remains viable for single-op all band unassisted entrants - as, to me, t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00302.html (10,551 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: K1ZM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:38:41 EST
Hi Pete Pse see my reply to VA3DX on the exact same subject - YES - I would support additional classes as long as the sponsors are willing to manage them. I think the 48 hour flavor worldwide DX cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00303.html (10,413 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 15 Mar 2004 11:49:21 -0600
On the other hand, might the 48-hour period be driving away younger contesters who have family obligations that retired folks may not face? == On an only very vaguely related subject... Anyone rememb
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00304.html (10,665 bytes)

20. RE: [CQ-Contest] Response to K5ZD's Comments (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:43:34 +0000 (GMT)
Seems to me that there are two very distinct classes of contesters. Those who have time/energy/will/ability to spend an entire weekend on the radio. And those who don't. I venture that the latter cat
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-03/msg00310.html (10,826 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu