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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+and\s+LOTW\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:27:07 -0500; I thought I would check out the WPX provision on LOTW this morning. I have a bunch of prefixes from all the contests over the years and I thought it might be cool to have the certificate. I went thro; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00248.html (7,223 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Ktfrog007@aol.com; Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:26:21 -0400 (EDT); Hi Bill, Join eQSL(AG) and other stations' AG eQSLs can be used for your WPX. You'll have to upload all your logs again and eQSL takes only ADI files, no Cabrillos (I've complained to them about that; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00253.html (8,150 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Timothy Coker <n6win73@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:26:10 -0700; Or it could cost $1582.20 in postage, assuming first class US mail SASE sent to each of those prefixes for a hard card. Plus figure in 1758 QSL cards, envelopes, labels, pens, hand cramps, paper cut; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00256.html (8,723 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us>; Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:46:35 -0500; Interesting. LoTW has cross referenced none of my QSOs before the date that WPX was activated for everyone. It had 47 WPX matches out of nearly 3100 confirmations as of yesterday. I added some manual; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00257.html (8,214 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:26:00 +0200; Tim, ever heard of "the bureau"? Will cost nothing (at least internationally for US operators) except membership in your local society (ARRL for US). Just to add still another point of view. ;-) 73,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00267.html (10,056 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:11:22 -0500; I guess that my original idea was that of comparing the relative value of the certificate. The two certificates that I value most are 5BWAZ and DXCC. Now 5BWAZ certificate requires only 200 confirmat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00268.html (12,093 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Charles Gallo <charlie@thegallos.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:08:04 -0400; Not here in the US, the ARRL charges $2 for the first 10 cards, or .75/oz in bulk _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00269.html (8,224 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Ktfrog007@aol.com; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:34:40 -0400 (EDT); I use Global QSL for outgoing bureau QSLs. It costs $106/1000 QSLs, or about 11 cents per card. But that's the total cost. All you do is email them an ADIF file with the QSO data and they do the rest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00270.html (8,405 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:52:37 +0200; Thanks to Charles and John for the clarification. Was not aware that there are additional fees besides ARRL membership. Seems we're living in perfect world concerning this in Germany and I suppose mo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00271.html (9,730 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Timothy Coker <n6win73@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:11:26 -0700; Good point Olli... I hadn't thought about the reduced cost of the bureau. I use them (now using GlobalQSL) but don't really expect much return rate anytime soon. I mainly QSL to DX as a preemptive ne; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00272.html (12,644 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Tom WC5B <wc5b@mscginc.org>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:22:23 -0500; I also use Global QSL. They are very slow at processing orders at times and not all countries use the IARU system, but otherwise it has been a great alternative. Tom WC5B Sent from my iPhone ________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00273.html (9,829 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: "Michael D. Adams" <mda@ab1od.org>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:10:45 -0400; Traditionally, the U.S. Postal Service was very jealous of its monopoly on mail service. Even though those postal regulations have been interpreted a bit more liberally the past few years, I have the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00274.html (8,916 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:01:16 -0500; Once upon a time it had something to do with "Postal Regulations". Now that USPS is a semi-private corporation, I'm not sure that excuse continues to be valid. 73, de Hans K0HB ______________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00275.html (9,062 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:09:35 -0500; Two points -- 1) A number of US organizations have their own internal "bureaus". Haven't heard of any of them going to prison. 2) The card sorters at Newington are our employees. If they object to th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00277.html (10,304 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Jim Cassidy <jc_ki7y@q.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:48:07 -0400 (EDT); A lot of the sorting for the ARRL outgoing QSL Bureau is done by volunteers. I have a couple of friends who have done quite a lot of it. 73 Jim KI7Y Two points -- 1) A number of US organizations have; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00283.html (10,880 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: Jim Cassidy <jc_ki7y@q.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:11:29 -0400 (EDT); I should have added that the incoming bureau cards are also handled by all volunteers at the call area level. I am involved with the 7th area bureau and we have 27 volunteers that sort and distribute; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00284.html (12,100 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:51:35 -0800; Excellent. We all owe them thanks. But if the workload is too much, I suppose they could un-volunteer. My domestic QSL's run about 5:1 over my DX QSL's. ARRL could use the increased revenue to hire m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00285.html (11,224 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX and LOTW (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:51:01 -0500; The original subject of this thread was actually regarding the cost of using the LOTW confirmations for WPX. Somehow it has morphed into a criticism of the sorters of the QSL bureau. Frankly I am not; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2012-07/msg00292.html (13,139 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]