- 1. [CQ-Contest] SP Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "Hal Kennedy" <halken@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:32:18 -0500
- Since it now says: "Remote receiving sites within 100 KM are okay," and I note it's plural in one or more places.... I guess this means I can have, at least hypothetically, as many remote receivers a
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00260.html (7,712 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CQ-Contest] SP Rules (score: 1)
- Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:56:21 +0000
- There are a couple of simple, unambiguous tests (with Yes or No answers) which, together, determine the difference between Single-Op and everything else, and are independent of present and future tec
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00263.html (7,428 bytes)
- 3. [CQ-Contest] SP Rules (score: 1)
- Author: "W3KL \(Dr. Jeffrey K Okamitsu\)" <w3kl@w3kl.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:08:52 -0500
- I just noticed that the SP rules (rule 6 in particular) have been update since I looked at them yesterday. They clarify/amplify/expand greatly on rule 6. 73 es gl today. Jeff, W3KL __________________
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00265.html (7,244 bytes)
- 4. Re: [CQ-Contest] SP Rules (score: 1)
- Author: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
- Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 04:02:13 +0000
- Like most contest rules - which I note seem to be mostly written in USA - the SPTBDC seems to adopt the same look-for-the-bomb instead of look-for-the-bomber approach to airline safety. These contest
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00267.html (7,633 bytes)
- 5. Re: [CQ-Contest] SP Rules (score: 1)
- Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:15:07 -0700
- Exactly, and it doesn't work for domestic consumption either. That's why so many people over here are constantly debating the intent behind the rule, how to interpret it, and how it should apply to u
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-12/msg00270.html (8,664 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu