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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+M\/S\s+Rule\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: "Robert L. Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:14:45 -0500; Hi Ron, My comments are interspersed below..., reasons why it shouldn't be done. I don't recall him putting it to a vote. Well then, why did he provide a link to his blog to provide a rationale for h; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00575.html (9,194 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:00:38 -0700; The pot calling the kettle black. How humorous ! Rank Call Year Category Score QSOs WPX Hours Operator(s) Cert 1 KQ2M/1 2008 SO HP ALL 583,376 629 404 8.4 [Cert] 2 KQ2M/1 2006 SO HP ALL 3,419,570 1,7; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00577.html (10,114 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: Mike N0HI <mike@n0hi.net>; Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:29:13 -0500; Guys, I'm thankful that Randy gives us a say at all. Technically, he doesn't have to. -- Mike DeChristopher, N0HI http://www.n0hi.net telnet://cluster.n0hi.net _______________________________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00578.html (10,634 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:06:50 -0700; Nothing I could find for KQ2M in M/S for ARRL (going back to 1997) or CQWW (going back to 2004) either. 73, Dave AB7E _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00583.html (11,155 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: PD2R <pd2r.maarten@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:39:25 -0800 (PST); He never said he participated in the M/S category. He only suggested to listen what these people (who actually participate in the M/S category) have to say about the rule change since it affects them; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-11/msg00588.html (12,671 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: PD2R <pd2r.maarten@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 02:58:48 -0800 (PST); After my reply (posted above) I received 2 emails about this subject. I have nothing against receiving emails but I would like to keep the discussion on-line so everybody can join in. Personally I'd; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00042.html (7,853 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Rule (score: 1): Author: "Gerry Lynch" <director@allianceparty.org>; Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:58:49 -0800; At least in CQWW and contests that have a similar M/S rule (e.g. IOTA), M/S is by far my favourite category of entry. However, if I wanted to add a new category to contesting, rather than a M/1 clas; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00109.html (8,280 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]