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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Spotting\s+Errors\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:47:15 -0500; And V and 4. I remember, years ago, working NV6O in a PHONE NAQP and giving his call as N4BO - there was about 15 seconds of strangled silence on the frequency before he could stop laughing enough to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00076.html (9,616 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors (score: 1): Author: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>; Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:40:33 -0600; Here's another perspective: not to totally disagree with Ken's advice, but you have to pick your spots when deciding to wade into a pileup to only ask the running station for his call. At 6y1v on the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00085.html (12,568 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors (score: 1): Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:09:18 +0100; Another perspective would be to have the pileup station signing its call as part of the exchange instead after its TU. The massive pileups following a TU is already totally covering the callsign give; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00088.html (13,556 bytes)
24. Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:39:32 -0800; This is the third or fourth email in the past couple of days where the poster assumes that a busted call sign will result in a Not In Log penalty. Which is not true at all. If somebody busts your cal; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-12/msg00093.html (11,534 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 24
Page: [1] [2]