Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Multiple\s+Calls\,\s+Same\s+Rover\s+\[was\:\s+Septemebr\s+VHF\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+Multiple\s+Calls\,\s+Same\s+Rover\s+\[was\:\s+Septemebr\s+VHF\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: <w0eea@sbbco.net>; Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:46:59 -0600; Hi Ev and Tom, General Rule 3.5 is brought forward into the "General Rules for ARRL Contests on Bands Above 50 MHz" by Rule number 1.3 therein. Rule 1.3 is equal in force to rules 2.3.1 and 2.3.2...; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00047.html (10,909 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: Radiosporting Fan <radiosporting@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT); Jim, good catch! When I originally inquired about about this, I admitted that I may have been missing something obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. Best wishes to Tom's activity! Here's hoping for g; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00050.html (7,665 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:45:38 -0700; There is no contradiction. The very first rule in the General Rules is: 1. Precedence of Rules: 1.1. Rules for individual contests or events, including Field Day, take precedence over all General Rul; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00065.html (13,081 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: "M.T." <martho1@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:58:58 -0500; Why doesn't someone just call Dan and see what he has to say? That would be a quick answer. Just for conversation sake, let's say that is not within the rules to operate the rover with multiple famil; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00066.html (16,279 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: "k9tms@mindspring.com" <k9tms@mindspring.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:08:45 -0500; Ken; This has been done several times by several rovers over the last few years. And the logs were submitted. Interesting that all the negative comments seem to come from Hams we most likely have no; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00067.html (15,685 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: "k9tms@mindspring.com" <k9tms@mindspring.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:23:08 -0500; Due to the un-ending stream of these emails K9PLS has decided not participate as a rover. Looks like the Pig-Pen Lawyers win again. VHF could considered ______________________________________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00072.html (15,925 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 06:36:34 -0700; There will always be some contest rule violatons that can not be detected by looking at the logs that are sent in after the contest. How is quoting the rules to the contest a negative comment? ( I wi; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00073.html (8,627 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] Multiple Calls, Same Rover [was: Septemebr VHF (score: 1): Author: "John Wilcox / NS1Z" <ns1z@cfl.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:43:49 -0000; They only have the power you give them, of course... --Original Message-- From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of k9tms@mindspring.com Sen; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2005-09/msg00074.html (8,877 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]