Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+Recording\s+a\s+new\s+message\s+on\-the\-fly\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Chris Burbanks" <g3sjj@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:47:41 +0100
This is the second time I have put out this request on the Reflector and I am the third person to request information. I appreciate it has nothing to do with RTTY but maybe someone knows the answer.
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00117.html (7,470 bytes)

2. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Chris Burbanks" <g3sjj@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:31:25 +0100
Thanks to the guys who have kindly responded but I still haven't found out what has taken the place of Shift-Fkey to record messages. What I can't understand is why take out a facility which benefits
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00119.html (7,818 bytes)

3. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Krichbaum" <pfkski@vail.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:48:17 -0600
I agree with Chris, why would one need 20 pre-recorded messages? It seems that no one has discovered how to record messages now. I used the record on the fly at TI5N in WPX SSB in March and it was qu
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00120.html (8,981 bytes)

4. Re: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: Larry L Lindblom <llindblom@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:56:55 -0500
To my memory many months back there were several people here on the reflector being very loud about needing the ten additional SSB messages. Possibly one of them can explain the rationale and just ma
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00121.html (9,630 bytes)

5. Re: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Baron - KB3MM" <SteveBaron@StarLinX.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:03:56 -0000
You are right on target. We again got a surprise when some new capability was added and loyal users got a big surprise when good things got broken. begin _____________________________________________
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00122.html (10,003 bytes)

6. Re: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Baron - KB3MM" <SteveBaron@StarLinX.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:16:10 -0000
Having more messages may not be a problem if one doesn't use them. The MAJOR BUMMER is changing the behavior the behavior of WL and having loyal customers scrambling to try to find out how to record
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00124.html (11,350 bytes)

7. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Steve GW4BLE" <GW4BLE@btconnect.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:22:14 -0000
So we can be 100% sure here.... Having not yet downloaded 10.49 (still with 10.48), can someone confirm that the Shift F1 F2 etc.. for "on-the-fly" recordings does NOT work in the new release? 73 Ste
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00125.html (8,334 bytes)

8. Re: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:29:39 -0700
If I still have the 10.48zip file is it ok to go backwards to get the record on-the-fly back? Tnx Dick W7ZR that _______________________________________________ WriteLog mailing list WriteLog@contest
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00126.html (9,310 bytes)

9. Re: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "M. Edward Wilborne III" <wilborne@mew3.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:36:34 -0400
That is why features should be added as a user enabled option, and not cast in stone. When our company updates programs, we implement new features as options if it is going to change existing functio
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00127.html (11,521 bytes)

10. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Garry Shapiro" <garry@ni6t.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:07:57 -0700
Steve: with 10.49 works for some, and does not work for others. With no statement from Wayne, the only logical conclusion is that to use it presumes considerable risk. I already know, to my sorrow, t
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00133.html (9,989 bytes)

11. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:26:02 -0000
It's disappointing that with the 20+ messages about this in the last week, neither Wayne nor Ron have taken the 60 seconds needed to address the problem, or at least say it's being fixed in the next
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00134.html (11,346 bytes)

12. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Kline" <skline17@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:43:11 -0500
This has been interesting to me as an outsider. I have been thinking about writing a check and buying Writelog. I got on the reflector to get a feel for some of the issues. I want to use it, not spen
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00136.html (12,988 bytes)

13. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: "Chris Burbanks" <g3sjj@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:30:30 +0100
Steve, it is not always as bad as this. I reckon WL is the best contest logging program currently available, but there are some frustrating side-effects. Historically WL appears to have been created
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00137.html (16,024 bytes)

14. RE: [WriteLog] Recording a new message on-the-fly (score: 1)
Author: Mark Aaker K6UFO <K6UFO@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:50:47 -0700
I asked about this over a month ago, on August 15th: <http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-08/msg00101.html> and have only received inquiries from other users having the same prob
/archives//html/WriteLog/2004-09/msg00140.html (8,717 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu