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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+SS\s+exchange\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca (Kelly Taylor); Date: Sat Nov 8 21:56:38 1997; According to the rules as published in Oct. 1997 QST (can there be a better source?) the other station's callsign is not part of the required exchange; I quoth: ``4) Exchange: A consecutive serial nu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00196.html (8,097 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin); Date: Sat Nov 8 16:33:32 1997; snip... Rite... The 96 SS Rules don't even give an 'on-the-air' example like this year's Rules...it doesn't say anything about using the other station's callsign to precede the exchange in the narrat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00199.html (8,865 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sun Nov 9 11:30:33 1997; Aren't we missing the whole point? Isn't sending the other station's callsign a part of a 'legal per FCC rules' contact? I haven't checked Part 97. While you may not have to do it for a contest conta; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00209.html (8,179 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: jleahy@norwich.net (Jim Leahy); Date: Sun Nov 9 15:38:04 1997; Yes, kind of like how we all never exceed 55 MPH or any other posted speed limit. Because it's the law. yea, right...... -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/ Administrative re; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00215.html (8,343 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: w9cf@ptolemy.la.asu.edu (Kevin Schmidt); Date: Sun Nov 9 19:34:04 1997; As a low key, mostly S&P kind of guy, I'll happily send whatever you serious guys want me to. Right now, I never send the call of the CQing station unless it is required in the exchange. I have assum; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00216.html (9,558 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk); Date: Sun Nov 9 19:42:17 1997; KG5U wrote: "ask them something out of context, like 'RST?'" I asked four stations for my RST during SS (because I wanted to KNOW...). Three of the four disappeared. The fourth had to be asked five t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00219.html (7,953 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: dieven@email.msn.com (Dick Dievendorff); Date: Sun Nov 9 17:15:24 1997; Nope. The FCC wants you to send YOUR call at the end of a QSO. I don't know of any FCC requirement to ever send the other guys' call. Sometimes I communicate (when responding to ? for example) with p; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00232.html (9,426 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca (Kelly Taylor); Date: Sun Nov 9 18:54:49 1997; I'll admit to being a tad rusty on regs, but I seem to remember reading that the only requirement is to ID oneself. ID on the part of the other station is HIS responsibility. 73 k. -- CQ-Contest on W; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00235.html (8,060 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: k0hb@juno.com (Hans Brakob); Date: Sun Nov 9 20:27:26 1997; No, in the US there is no requirement in Part 97 to send the call of the other station unless you are engaged in third party communications with a non-US station. I am not familiar with VE rules on t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00236.html (8,144 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: bigdon@eskimo.com (Big Don); Date: Mon Nov 10 01:04:51 1997; What's all this nit-picking about over the rules?? Good grief, if all the rules were being religiously followed, a *pileup* could never exist. If you even *SUSPECT* another station may be using the f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00238.html (8,884 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin); Date: Mon Nov 10 08:01:00 1997; Yep, Jim. Your's was not the only similar response I received from my suggestion. Here's what I determined from it: 1. My idea was not a good one. 2. No one should do it. 3. My access to a keyboard s; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00244.html (8,410 bytes)
12. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: desmith@telalink.net (Doug Smith); Date: Mon Nov 10 13:53:34 1997; Well, it becomes obvious after a few hundred QSOs that about 30-40% of the people you're working can't really copy CW at the speed you're sending; they're getting your exchange only because you keep; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00257.html (8,503 bytes)
13. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: k4ro@music-city.tdec.state.tn.us (k4ro@music-city.tdec.state.tn.us); Date: Mon Nov 10 18:08:04 1997; Well that describes me to a tee just a few years ago. CW has never been easy for me. I was a General Class for something like 10 years because I just couldn't hack CW. Then I started DXing, and quic; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00265.html (9,658 bytes)
14. [CQ-Contest] SS exchange (score: 1): Author: desmith@telalink.net (Doug Smith); Date: Tue Nov 25 17:14:33 1997; before If (as Bill said) we're asked to slow down, most of us are happy to do just that. (there are a few who can't find the CW speed keys on their computers! They'll lose a few QSOs for that -- bein; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-11/msg00519.html (8,802 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]