Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+WPX\s+2002\s+log\s+submissions\s+and\s+the\s+damn\s+robot\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: vk4cej@hamsnet.net (John - vk4cej)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:50:51 +1000
I have seen discussion in this reflector regarding the lack of logs being submitted for rtty contests.... and no wonder. I have had my WPX 2002 log returned by the robot 2 times so far. The frustrati
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00264.html (8,451 bytes)

2. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: faunt@panix.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:30:24 -0500 (EST)
I have seen discussion in this reflector regarding the lack of logs being submitted for rtty contests.... and no wonder. I have had my WPX 2002 log returned by the robot 2 times so far. The frustrati
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00265.html (9,141 bytes)

3. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: edlyn@california.com (Eddie Schneider)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:12:10 -0800
Admittedly there have been a few minor glitches with the RTTY WPX robot. However, the kind person, Trey N5KO, who set up the robot, for free, in order to relieve the amount of e-traffic going to the
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00266.html (9,853 bytes)

4. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (K4SB)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:03:16 +0000
I agree with Doug's perception and am sure it makes it easier for the log checkers, but I'd like to know why the damn robot can tell me what the errors are, but is incapable of correcting them. If it
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00267.html (8,270 bytes)

5. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: k0869565@tiscalinet.de (DJ3IW Goetz)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:30:47 -0000
And the robot keeps rejecting mine..... tried again yesterday (UTC). CATEGORY: SINGLE-OP 80M LOW is an "Invalid Cabrillo category specification" but it also offers me exactely the same writing as a c
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00268.html (11,196 bytes)

6. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: faunt@panix.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:37:28 -0500 (EST)
I agree with Doug's perception and am sure it makes it easier for the log checkers, but I'd like to know why the damn robot can tell me what the errors are, but is incapable of correcting them. If it
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00269.html (9,427 bytes)

7. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: faunt@panix.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:47:14 -0500 (EST)
An example of why it shouldn't correct things itself. "LOW" and "80M" are mutually exclusive according to the rules. Which one do you want? Its suggested fix is wrong, according to the rules. 73, dou
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00270.html (11,721 bytes)

8. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: w7ti@dslextreme.com (Bill Turner)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:48:09 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I think it wants to see "RTTY" at the end of the above statement. I sent mine in like this: CATEGORY: SINGLE-OP 20M HIGH RTTY and it was acce
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00271.html (8,664 bytes)

9. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: jjreisert@alum.mit.edu (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:39:53 -0500
It's a case of "Do as I mean, not as I say." The robot can't figure out what you intended, so it returns the log. I'd rather computers let me correct mistakes instead of assuming they know what I mea
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00298.html (8,771 bytes)

10. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: k4ww@arrl.net (Shelby Summerville)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:50:18 -0500
"The robot can't figure out what you intended, so it returns the log." No, but when it returns "CATEGORY: SINGLE-OP 15M LOW" as an invalid category, but accepts "CATEGORY: SINGLE-OP 15M HIGH" as a va
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00303.html (8,814 bytes)

11. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: jjreisert@alum.mit.edu (Jim Reisert AD1C)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:41:27 -0500
To which K4WW replied: And this illustrates my point to a 'T'. Read the rules: So there are two possible categories that come out of this: - Low-power all-band - High-power single-band You told the r
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00305.html (7,938 bytes)

12. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: k4ww@arrl.net (Shelby Summerville)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:13:01 -0500
"You told the robot that your entry was low-power single-band. What did you mean? It has no idea, that's not a valid category. But the example it suggests is perfectly legitimate, as something you *m
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00306.html (7,634 bytes)

13. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: w7ti@dslextreme.com (Bill Turner)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:49:48 -0800
_________________________________________________________ I agree it might have been worded more clearly, but your question is answered by the last sentence in part (b). Here is the section on single
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00307.html (8,071 bytes)

14. [RTTY] WPX 2002 log submissions and the damn robot (score: 1)
Author: jflanders2@home.com (Jerry Flanders)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:54:28 -0500
The rule: (b) Low Power: Same as 1(a) except that output power is 150 watts or less. Stations in this category compete with other low power stations only. However, only all-band entries may be classe
/archives//html/RTTY/2002-02/msg00314.html (9,609 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu