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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+VUAC\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "Jim Worsham" <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:47:46 -0400; Thanks to everyone for the somewhat overwhelming response! All of your comments have been helpful. I have noticed a few common questions in many of the responses so I thought I would address those in; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00176.html (9,026 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Bruce Herrick <bdh@teleport.com>; Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:22:44 -0600; Hi Jim My first response is, "IT AIN'T BROKE! PLEASE DON'T "TRY" TO FIX IT!" Things have a bad habit of getting much worse when a non-problem becomes a problem to some who aren't even involved. See t; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00179.html (7,931 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Alex <extraham@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:55:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00); In other words, you (the committee) are not representing the VHF/UHF community, but are representing the ARRL. There is a big difference. I guess that's where part of the confusion comes from. The co; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00180.html (9,585 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "Tad Danley" <tdanley@cox.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:24:41 -0500; I'm just a casual 2 meter weak signal operator, with a very modest station at home, and have been an occasional operator at VHF/UHF multi-op stations. But I know how emotional the 144.200 MHz issue i; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00182.html (8,086 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 05:31:37 -0700; As I recall, each elected Division Director appoints a members from their Division to the CAC and VUAC. Actually, that would be useful. The ARRLWeb, where something like that should be easy to find,; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00184.html (8,804 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: <k9mk@flash.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:43:35 -0500; Hi Jim, Thank you for sharing this. I would hope that as part of your kick-off meeting that you share copies of these emails and other feedback threads with the committee members. Thanks again... 73; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00185.html (10,901 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Bob Witte K0NR <list@k0nr.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:47:05 -0600; I agree. This kind of committee work is difficult and not always rewarding. You may not like the structure that is set up (how VUAC "advises", not "decides") but let's not hammer the VUAC members tha; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00186.html (8,119 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 05:49:30 -0700; This is a bizarre attitude. Before the formation of the VUAC, ARRL VHF contest rules were established and modified by either the Membership Service Committee or Program and Services Committee, both o; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00187.html (9,598 bytes)
9. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:00:21 -0500 (CDT); It seems a few people are missing some points here. For one, at least a couple of the VUAC members are also on this reflector and other VHF reflectors - probably more. Jim DID ask for our feedbeck, d; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00193.html (10,102 bytes)
10. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Alex <extraham@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:54:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00); I agree fully! That's what he got, didn't he? I didn't realize it had to be all flattering 'n stuff. Heck, I even made a good suggestion of what to study. Something that can have a real impact in the; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00195.html (9,133 bytes)
11. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "Jim Worsham" <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:43:49 -0400; I guess I don't understand why you feel that we don't represent the VHF/UHF/Microwave community. I certainly feel that I do. The point I was trying to make is that our role is advisory. We don't set; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00196.html (11,643 bytes)
12. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: Alex <extraham@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:17:31 -0400 (GMT-04:00); Hi Jim, Fair enough. Any group or committee represents those who set their agenda. So the VUAC is an ARRL representation to the V/UHF community and not the other way around. That's good. And I'm glad; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00197.html (8,633 bytes)
13. Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "dbubke@juno.com" <dbubke@juno.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:50:32 GMT; Gee, my West coast VUAC (N6NB) rep represents the ARRL and not the VHF/UHF/Microwave contest enthusiast? Thanks, I needed a good belly laugh today!! Dan K6NKC Fair enough. Any group or committee repr; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2006-06/msg00200.html (9,182 bytes)
14. [VHFcontesting] VUAC (score: 1): Author: "frank bechdoldt" <k3uhf@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:17:43 -0800; I thought that you had to make all your contacts from within the radius of 50 miles for a VUAC and then that was increased to 200km. IE if all your hilltops are with in a 200km circle or radius (i'm; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-02/msg00006.html (7,724 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]