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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+unique\s+contacts\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] unique contacts (score: 1): Author: Merrimon Crawford Pladsen <ab0mv@ix.netcom.com>; Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:00:29 -0400; I have sometimes felt tempted to make one call and only one call in contests that penalize for unique calls.....and making that one call to one of the contest managers of those contests that penalize; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00130.html (10,618 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] unique contacts (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:18:16 -0700; a unique from friends in those other activities. I have a friend here in town who usually gets on and works me on every band, even if they are dead. Lots of times he is a double mult for me on a dead; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00136.html (9,726 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] unique contacts (score: 1): Author: "Stuart Santelmann KC1F" <kc1f@adelphia.net>; Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:44:27 +0100; one My understanding is that NOBODY is penalized for callsigns that are simply unique, at least in CQWW and ARRL. The interest in uniques by log checkers is that most BAD callsigns are uniques, by v; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00146.html (10,354 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]