Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Re\:\s+ARRL\s+reviews\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+Re\:\s+ARRL\s+reviews\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] Re: ARRL reviews (score: 1): Author: mschellur@earthlink.net (M Schell); Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:03:48 -0400; The one salient point that has been missed: the ARRL reviews are the most quantitative and definitive data available. The data far surpasses the depth of the discussions that occur on this list. 73,; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00327.html (7,674 bytes)
2. [TenTec] Re: ARRL reviews (score: 1): Author: w8au@sssnet.com (w8au@sssnet.com); Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:33:18 -0400; Agreed. The ARRL has an in-house lab to do extreme levels of testing. The other "magazines" do not have this and rely only on other individuals to provide some type of review.... mostly subjective. M; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00334.html (8,307 bytes)
3. [TenTec] Re: ARRL reviews (score: 1): Author: jimr.reid@verizon.net (Jim Reid); Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:59:26 -1000; I find the ARRL lab "Expanded Test Reports", which are ALL data, to be just great! Nothing subjective there. 73, Jim KH7M; /archives//html/TenTec/2002-04/msg00337.html (7,733 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]