Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+SO2R\s+a\s+separate\s+category\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+SO2R\s+a\s+separate\s+category\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] SO2R a separate category? (score: 1): Author: k6ll@juno.com (k6ll@juno.com); Date: Thu Jun 1 20:11:27 2000; You know it's like deja vu all over again on this subject. Everybody states their opinion, there is no consensus, and after a while it all blows over and nothing happens. I just remembered what seeme; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-06/msg00044.html (7,650 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] SO2R a separate category? (score: 1): Author: w6rw@earthlink.net (Michael S. Mitchell); Date: Fri Jun 2 00:00:03 2000; I have been following this thread with great interest......it coincides with some research that I have been doing on the history of the CQWW DX Contest......I am sure that a very similar discussion t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-06/msg00050.html (8,428 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] SO2R a separate category? (score: 1): Author: w2up@mindspring.com (Barry Kutner); Date: Fri Jun 2 10:05:15 2000; Interesting history, thanks... It seems most (I didn't say ALL) of the guys who advocate SO2R be a new category have never operated SO2R. They have the misconception that it's a simple hardware addit; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-06/msg00057.html (7,206 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]