Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+NAQP\s+RTTY\s+Frequencies\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+NAQP\s+RTTY\s+Frequencies\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:03:34 -0500; This has been posted, before, and after February NAQP RTTY, it needs posting again. I'm a strong proponent of "not preaching to the choir", but, short of a rules change, I feel this is the best way t; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00130.html (8,067 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:45:18 -0800; Good advice for all contests, not just NAQP. Thanks, Shelby. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/l; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00132.html (6,874 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: Curt Nixon <cptcurt@flash.net>; Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:41:37 -0500; Please don't think I am arguing the point here..after being chastised on-air for calling CQ at about 7045 (RTTY) on a very quiet (my end) early evening "in the middle of the ""CW Band""" , I guess I; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00133.html (10,237 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:19:41 -0800; To my mind this discussion is about "organized courtesy". The basic underlying principle is to not interfere with ongoing use of a frequency. In the case of CW and RTTY, their sub-bands co-exist over; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00134.html (13,142 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:20:17 -0600; This one I knew about and I try to abide by. Is this in the rules? If not, how were we to know? Besides this thread, I mean. I have no problem making a PSK exception in all the RTTY contest rules - i; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00137.html (8,369 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:21:59 -0700; Sorry to disagree but we SHARE our frequencies. None of our frequencies are exclusive use and I hope we never get to the point that we have exclusive frequencies as it will be the beginning of the en; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00138.html (11,826 bytes)
7. [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "k0bx@arrl.net" <k0bx@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:34:08 -0800 (PST); This discussion always comes up after each contest. Back in the 70's when major contests were only CW and SSB, the same discussion always took place. That is why the WARC bands are no contest. Somewh; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00139.html (8,043 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Gordon LaPoint" <n1mgo@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:13:28 -0500; Hi All, I tend to agree with Mike, W0MU. The only frequencies we have to avoid are the declared emergency and stay within band plans. I do lots of psk31 and find that the WARC bands are just fine on; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00140.html (13,992 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: Art Searle W2NRA <w2nra@optonline.net>; Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:09:27 -0500; It seems to me that any given contest weekend, whatever the mode of the contest that mode fills up the bands. CW flows into PSK and RTTY. RTTY flow down in to CW as well as way up the bands. Even in; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00142.html (12,418 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:05:10 -0500; w0mu@w0mu.com wrote: "Sorry to disagree but we SHARE our frequencies." I knew when I posted this, that there would be varying opinions. Each, and everyone, is entitled to their opinion, however, rega; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00143.html (8,847 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:18:07 -0600; Whoa, whoa, whoa. If an action is not prohibited by the contest rules (or FCC/IC rules), how can doing doing that action cause disqualification? Is this some kind of double secret probation? -- Peter; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00144.html (9,189 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "David Levine" <david@levinecentral.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:39:33 -0500; I didn't care for the response either. It seemed out of place for the discussion that was occurring. I guess with a statement in the rules like: Disqualifications. Entries with score reductions great; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00145.html (10,727 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "wa5zup" <wa5zup@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:43:30 -0700; Then put it in the rules and be done with it. It needs to be spelled out so everyone knows what is expected. Not everyone that enters the contest is on this reflector. John wa5zup --Original Message-; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00146.html (9,341 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "David Levine" <david@levinecentral.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:47:53 -0500; Yes, I know I'm replying to my own post. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html band plan web page indicates the following: 20 Meters (14.0-14.35 MHz): 14.070-14.095 RTTY 14.095-1; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00147.html (11,935 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:50:00 -0700; I sure didn't expect that answer. So who do we talk to about finding another person to handle this contest and I don't think we need people that make statements like "mine are the only ones that coun; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00151.html (10,032 bytes)
16. [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: Russell Blair <russell_blair86@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:04:08 -0800 (PST); Well, I didn't like the tone of that answer, and I know that I dont send a log in but I give out alot of QSO's in the NAQP contest, but I think I have work my last NAQP RTTY contest. It been nice 73; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00153.html (6,809 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: ki6dy@sbcglobal.net; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:38:01 -0800 (PST); I sure like to know how you would police this. Is someone going to monitor 14.100 for the whole 12 hours?. Even if you did, you could not catch all the perpetrators. I try to stay clear of this frequ; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00154.html (10,521 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "jim" <wb5aaa@windstream.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:46:54 -0600; WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME ON THIS ?????????????? from the shack of WB5AAA 73 de JIM I sure like to know how you would police this. Is someone going to monitor 14.100 for the whole 12 hours?. Even if yo; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00155.html (11,171 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "richard" <richardschumann@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:50:18 -0800; Cuz there's nothin' on TV and this entertainment is free.... kn7sfz in orygun _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00156.html (12,603 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] NAQP RTTY Frequencies (score: 1): Author: "Eric - VE3GSI" <ve3gsi@sympatico.ca>; Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:11:31 -0500; Shelby and the RTTY Gang, I know there have been other e-posts on this subject, with most, if not all objecting to the 'off-limit' frequencies in question. As far as I know the NAQP contest would NOT; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-03/msg00157.html (11,971 bytes)

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