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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+QSO\s+opinion\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:18:27 -0400; Yes, it is just my opinion, yet I thought it may be worth mentioning. A QSO is generally accepted to be a two way conversation. If one side or the other does not have the correct information (Callsig; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00084.html (7,804 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:56:09 -0700; I've had similar qualms about CQ zones on occasion. I have received zone numbers that I knew were wrong - sometimes way wrong - and was not sure what to do. I ended up logging them but I did feel gui; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00089.html (7,553 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <psussman@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:29 -0400; To Bill and others, Thanks for your emails. My objective was not to 'stir up trouble' but rather to indicate how accepting or denying QSOs on someone's individual log is pretty much a hit-or-miss sit; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00092.html (9,316 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:12:23 -0600; Were you given credit for it? I was under the impression CQ did a fairly extensive cross check on zones. Mike W0MU J6/W0MU November 21 - December 1 2011 CQ WW DX CW W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net _______; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00097.html (8,512 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:59:52 -0700; I never checked so I don't know. Had I been in contention for an award I would have. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00098.html (7,369 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] QSO opinion (score: 1): Author: Phil Sussman <phil@pactor.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:35:08 -0400; To Bill and others, Thanks for your emails. My objective was not to 'stir up trouble' but rather to indicate how accepting or denying QSOs on someone's individual log is pretty much a hit-or-miss sit; /archives//html/RTTY/2011-10/msg00106.html (9,856 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]