Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+TO7A\s+debacle\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+TO7A\s+debacle\s*$/: 37 ]

Total 37 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Lloyd Cabral <kh6lc@hotmail.com>; Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 08:11:51 -1000; After following this thread, my only wish is that Randy would have inquired here for another e-mail address for Dim, or another source of contact with him BEFORE bringing this issue mainstream. Accus; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00222.html (7,173 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 14:15:31 -0600; So it is now Randy's fault that the the guy didn't get his emails? WOW! The guy got caught red handed and you people want to hang those that caught him. It is an amazing world we live in today. Lets; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00229.html (8,172 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 15:13:19 -0700; I think people need to be careful on making public comments that may come back to bite them in the butt sometime. 73 Tom W7WHY _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00234.html (7,389 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 18:08:58 -0500; Mike, I wish you had told everyone you had information showing or even saying he got caught red handed a long time ago. Do you have some information that says he was caught "red handed"? Everyone el; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00236.html (9,161 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 19:00:05 -0600; So how can one prove without any doubt that he did not cheat? The evidence is pretty clear to me. These decisions are not up for public debate or trials. The decisions of the committee are final. Mik; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00240.html (10,221 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: brian coyne <g4odv@yahoo.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC); The various threads on this issue have been enlightening in the number of disparate views expressed. The major question is . Do we wish to have our contests Policed or not? The inescapable fact is t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00244.html (13,225 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: "Juan EA5RS" <ea5rs@ono.com>; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 20:08:57 +0200; Interesting debate, but I am afraid there has been some misleading info/assumption on the reason for TO7A's DQ. I have not studied the log in detail, but if you are curious enough, have a look at TO7; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00260.html (10,494 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: donovanf@starpower.net; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 17:14:14 -0400 (EDT); Juan, You've discovered an extremely unusual pattern in the TO7A public log that's very difficult to rationalize. Three of the 160 meter European QSOs in TO7A's log have public logs: ON4TO, UT5URW an; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00268.html (12,105 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 19:17:12 -0400; Frank, I looked at this with some spot checks: OE3V, LA5HE (Rag!), SP3CQP, etc. Your team did not work any of these stations; nor did K3LR; nor did DL1A; nor did CN2AA - on any band... Looking a the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00274.html (13,821 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 21:11:57 -0500; Try to find an RBN spot for a TF3M on 40 meters on Nov 30. 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://l; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00283.html (14,286 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: k3it <gokoyev+k3it@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 22:22:26 -0400; UT5URW does not appear on 160m in any of the 7000+ logs except TO7A's. There is also a second NIL QSO with UT5URW in TO7A's log on 20m. Andrey lives in a high rise apartment building and doesn't have; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00284.html (16,550 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: donovanf@starpower.net; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 02:38:44 -0400 (EDT); Something is really wrong with this TO7A public log. There are a few brief runs on 160 meters scattered through the log, and they're all very familiar calls to 160 meters operators. Then there's this; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00285.html (17,130 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Dez Watson <g3ww.dez@virgin.net>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 10:24:46 +0100; Juan, Comparing public data from the RBN with the TO7A log, the 160m running period between 0346 UTC and 0351 on Sunday 30th Nov matches well: TO7A log: QSO: 1840 CW 2014-11-30 0346 TO7A 599 8 VE3DO; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00286.html (12,076 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 07:55:50 -0500; Great job by EA5RS and others to identify this block of 160m QSOs as being suspicious. According to the reverse log data (where we build a log for every station that makes any contacts in the receive; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00290.html (14,257 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Don Field <don.field@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:37:18 +0100; Just for the record, G3ZHL is a good friend of mine and doesn't operate CW or 160m 73 Don G3XTT _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http:; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00291.html (20,646 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Valery Petrov <r5ga@ya.ru>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:57:38 +0300; Just statistics: From 0434 to 0530: 30 UNIQUE CALLS WORKED (29 unique on 160, 1 unique on 80) -- 22 of them are MULTS (!), 6 of them are DOUBLE MULTS (!!) 28 of them HAVE NOT submitted their logs, 2; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00292.html (24,491 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: donovanf@starpower.net; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:53:38 -0400 (EDT); Hi Don, Your friend G3ZHL appears in the TO7A log four times! 73 Frank W3LPL -- Original Message -- Just for the record, G3ZHL is a good friend of mine and doesn't operate CW or 160m 73 Don G3XTT On; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00294.html (21,589 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: "Stewart GM4AFF" <stewart@gm4aff.net>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:39:19 +0100; Could be that someone is trying to stitch up Dimitri by feeding the calls. We have seen this before. Stewart GM4AFF --Original Message-- From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00296.html (21,697 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: "Braco OE1EMS" <oe1ems@emssolutions.at>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:08:37 +0200; Wow what a mess..... I realy never expected that someone can do this! OE3V is btw callsign which is not QRV so far I know! Not sure about assistance but somehow is sad that logger checker didn?t find; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00297.html (26,297 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle (score: 1): Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:55:33 -0600; And we wring our hand, cry, moan, complain, and search deep and hard for why new comers don't jump in wholeheartedly? NOW, the contest community, can start wondering why some of the little pistols di; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-05/msg00299.html (8,814 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]