- 1. [SD-User] Callsigns (score: 1)
- Author: "Geoff Bate" <g0fht@dsl.pipex.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:54:22 -0000
- Just a thought Guys whilst we're at it perhaps it may be a good idea to do away with callsigns altogether!!!!!!!! _______________________________________________ SD-User mailing list SD-User@contesti
- /archives//html/SD-User/2003-12/msg00004.html (6,163 bytes)
- 2. Re: [SD-User] Callsigns (score: 1)
- Author: "Paul O'Kane" <paul@ei5di.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:06:41 -0000
- Isn't that going a bit far? After all, callsigns have been known to change from one QSO to another :-) But what about 59(9) sent, received and logged in every QSO and then ignored by the log checkers
- /archives//html/SD-User/2003-12/msg00009.html (7,824 bytes)
- 3. [SD-User] callsigns (score: 1)
- Author: "Geoff Bate" <g0fht@dsl.pipex.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:22:06 -0000
- OK guys i was only jesting about omitting callsigns altogether but i thought the whole idea of contesting was to receive call+RS+Serial+whatever the contest calls for! If we take some of it away what
- /archives//html/SD-User/2003-12/msg00010.html (7,194 bytes)
- 4. Re: [SD-User] callsigns (score: 1)
- Author: Darren G0TSM <sd@g0tsm.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:40:21 +0000
- If you changed the rules of CQWW so you had to send your call and op name then all the multi-multi ops would be called Al :-) 73 Darren At 22:22 04/12/2003, you wrote: OK guys i was only jesting abou
- /archives//html/SD-User/2003-12/msg00011.html (7,819 bytes)
- 5. Re: [SD-User] callsigns (score: 1)
- Author: "Peter Bowyer" <g4mjs@blacksheep.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:51:29 -0000
- Ed, surely? :-) Peter G4MJS _______________________________________________ SD-User mailing list SD-User@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sd-user
- /archives//html/SD-User/2003-12/msg00012.html (7,086 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu