Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+State\s+QSO\s+parties\s+and\s+CW\s+$further\s+rules\s+deal$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+State\s+QSO\s+parties\s+and\s+CW\s+$further\s+rules\s+deal$\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (further rules deal) (score: 1): Author: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:40:44 -0700 (PDT); One thing that I don't like about the rules for many of the state QSO parties is that they lump CW and the digital modes together, in that you can work someone on CW or RTTY, but not both. CW and RTT; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00565.html (12,407 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] State QSO parties and CW (further rules deal) (score: 1): Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT); Maybe it's the lower participation rate, particularly with the mobiles. Mobile activity can make or break a QSO party. Folks probably have their hands full with two modes in some cases. Certainly cou; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-04/msg00568.html (14,111 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]