Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Comments\s+requested\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[SECC\]\s+Comments\s+requested\.\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: thompson@mindspring.com (thompson@mindspring.com); Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:11:53 -0400; I need some comments from club members and those who are subscribed to the SECC reflector on the CQ 160 Contests. 1. Looks like the Cabrillo format will dominate the logs next year (almost 40% were t; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00024.html (9,389 bytes)
2. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:49:43 -0400; In my opinion, there is NO percentage of uniques that should force a DQ. Any disqualification has to be a carefully executed decision by a human making the judgement. You can't just say "gosh, he had; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00025.html (9,979 bytes)
3. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Ed Sleight); Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 04:06:48 +0000; Have to disagree with Bill here. The log checking process has absolutely nothing to do with uniques. If a guy makes a few contacts, but doesn't send in a log, there's not much you can do. If the call; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00026.html (9,787 bytes)
4. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: gary@noblepub.com (Gary Breed); Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:42:26 -0400; Dave (almost 40% were this year) and I am looking at conversion programs for the old format (mainly NA and CT). I also need software to check Cabrillo logs. Any ideas? Contact N6TR and N5KO, who were; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00027.html (11,310 bytes)
5. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:26:04 -0400; It is certainly possible for someone to convince non-contesters to give them a contact. In fact, my Sweepstakes SSB log from 1999, with just 249 contacts had two uniques because I did just that. I th; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00030.html (10,524 bytes)
6. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Ed Sleight); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:46:04 +0000; I think Bill and I are on the same track, just saying it differently. But, again, any WEB page which will display your call will also give your Lat/Long. I'm certainly not that enthusiastic about gri; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00032.html (8,860 bytes)
7. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:07:10 -0500; I may be mistaken here but.....all these comments of cheating and how to cheat are really turning me off. I enjoy contesting for the pure thrill of it...thats it. Am I missing something here or has i; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00033.html (10,272 bytes)
8. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: jwolfe@bellsouth.net (Johnny Wolfe); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:12:13 -0400; DITTO, Dan, It was contesting that got me into Ham Radio in the first place... Johnny, K4TW I may be mistaken here but.....all these comments of cheating and how to cheat are really turning me off. I; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00034.html (10,997 bytes)
9. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:45:37 -0400; Dan, My point wasn't to encourage people to cheat, but to show that contesting, by its nature, relies on a certain level of honor amoung the participants. To the degree that log checkers can uncover; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00035.html (9,467 bytes)
10. Fw: [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: chapoton@mindspring.com (Henry Chapoton); Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:01:29 -0400; Bill wrote: I think disqualification should not be done by a computer. It should only come by careful consideration by a human judge. Computers don't disqualify logs. The log checkers do. Those guys; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00036.html (10,322 bytes)
11. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:19:28 -0500; I didn't mean to point the finger at anyone in particular. I meant it as a general statement on the state of affairs today. See you ALL in the next contest. Dan/W4NTI of -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.con; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00037.html (10,347 bytes)
12. Fw: [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: K4BAI@worldnet.att.net (John T. Laney, III); Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:55:40 -0700; I agree with Greg that the CQ contest checkers profess to only penalize and disqualify entrants in contests by a reasoned, human thought process. This is the way it should always be. However, ARRL is; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00038.html (8,864 bytes)
13. Fw: [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: AB4RU@aol.com (AB4RU@aol.com); Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:06:00 -0500; Hi All, Sounds like the log checking is getting too complicated. I am certainly not in favor of throwing out any good qso's just because I was the only one to work a 3B2 on 160 meters in a contest. I; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00040.html (8,228 bytes)
14. Fw: [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: K4BAI@worldnet.att.net (John Laney); Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:43:57 -0400; I don't think anyone is throwing out uniques as such. The question was originally what % of uniques is acceptable. Apparently some log checking programs would disqualify a log with more than a certai; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00041.html (9,290 bytes)
15. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: thompson@mindspring.com (thompson@mindspring.com); Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:04:11 -0400; I agree that uniques are part of normal contesting. The average uniques in the CQ 160 is less than 1% for scores over 500 QSOs. Then along comes a LZ9 and a UQ2 with hundreds of uniques that even clo; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00042.html (9,555 bytes)
16. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR); Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:38:41 -0400; That certainly warrants further investigation. I would take a dozen or so contacts and try to confirm them via e-mail. Even if you get only 2 or 3 answers, it should easily determine the quality of t; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00043.html (9,471 bytes)
17. [SECC] Comments requested. (score: 1): Author: w4nti@mindspring.com (w4nti@mindspring.com); Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:07:44 -0500; There it is, another example of my favorite quote; "You just cain't fix stupid" Dan/W4NTI in in my scorers but log than probably to -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/seccfaq.html Submissions:; /archives//html/SECC/2000-06/msg00044.html (10,698 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]