Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160\s*$/: 79 ]

Total 79 documents matching your query.

41. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:57:04 -0500; And I disagree with your declaration that Gary was incorrect. His position, and mine are based on the original intent and design of the software writers...not how some are modifying and misusing the; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00088.html (29,145 bytes)
42. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:03:21 -0400; I doubt I'd like to get along the way you want us to get along, by suppressing discussion because you don't like it. You want tolerance based upon indifference, and that's wrong. I would posit that; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00089.html (12,307 bytes)
43. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: "Lloyd - N9LB" <lloydberg@charter.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:57:45 -0500; Alan, respectfully, it doesnt sound like you ever looked at Joe Taylor's WSJT program and you do not understand the facts of FT8. Operators can NOT "walk away and not participate in making QSOs" as t; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00090.html (18,121 bytes)
44. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: GEORGE WALLNER <aa7jv@atlanticbb.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 20:06:13 -0400; Nobody is talking about "shutting" anything down. Quite the opposite: expand the DXCC program by creating a new category! FT-x is sufficiently different to justify that. The skills need for FT-x are; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00091.html (13,599 bytes)
45. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:17:07 -0600; Gutting the hobby? We are entitled to our own opinions. There are a bunch of people having a blast on FT8 that seem to think differently. What is your goal to get FT8 banned? Why would the ARRL do; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00092.html (31,450 bytes)
46. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:25:15 -0600; Have any of you taken the time to write your Division Directors to ask for changes and add FT-x as a separate award? That does not solve the real issue here which is people have abandoned CW for FT; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00093.html (14,557 bytes)
47. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:29:53 -0400; Absolutely not! All modes used for DXCC have more skills in common than they have differences. There is more difference between CW and SSB than there is among RTTY, PSKxx, FTx - yet all count for DXC; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00094.html (15,041 bytes)
48. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:37:09 -0500; Agree... Sent from my iPad _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00095.html (15,300 bytes)
49. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:42:20 -0500; I would agree a separate DXCC award should be established for operators using remote stations that exceed a certain distance from the control point...like a station half way around the world. To me t; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00096.html (16,478 bytes)
50. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:47:52 -0400; Agreed George. It's (past) time for mode specific single band awards. There's nothing preventing our alleged "national organization" from doing so, only the will to do so. _________________ Searchabl; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00097.html (13,859 bytes)
51. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:34:23 -0500; This makes complete sense to me. You are right - FTx is a different beastie and compared with RTTY, the latter takes a ton more HUMAN work to bag the week ones. 73/jeff/ac0c alpha-charlie-zero-charl; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00098.html (14,338 bytes)
52. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Phil Duff <na4m@suddenlink.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 21:15:23 -0500; ARRL stopped issuing new RTTY DXCCs in 2011 when it became Digital DXCC for RTTY, PSK, JT9, FT8, FT4,<insert newest digital mode here>. Same as SSB, AM, FM all count as Phone DXCC. So I suppose we c; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00099.html (9,712 bytes)
53. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:47:34 -0400; If you want to fully automate FT8, there's a presentation available on YouTube. It only requires installing Quick Macros (QM). No hacking to the core program is required. During my setup, it was nec; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00100.html (9,913 bytes)
54. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: "Ross Johnson" <randljohnson@xtra.co.nz>; Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 02:46:26 +0000; Hi Fred Could no stop laughing at your post. 73 Ross ZL3RJ I really wish I could find the robot that runs my FT-8 station.I would have him put up a Beverage or two and work on the tower.I tired of do; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00101.html (8,232 bytes)
55. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Billy Cox <aa4nu@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:12:34 -0500 (CDT); Good Evening/Morning All, A technically incorrect statement was made, the statement began with: "FT8 (and FT4) does not work like that. ..." and then things went sour. In less than 60 seconds a Googl; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00102.html (37,552 bytes)
56. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 23:29:23 -0500; Disclaimer here .. I've never used FT-X I still have a copy of DIGIPAN on a laptop somewhere that I used on PSK-31 a decade or so ago. From this discussion, it "appears" that FT is a "one-button push; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00103.html (10,113 bytes)
57. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:51:25 -0400; Folks, for me, the real issue is the lack of people coming on CW on 160M for DXpeditions. Lets be honest, many people don't like the struggle of Qs on 160 like we do. And many are not great at CW. By; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00104.html (8,224 bytes)
58. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Hans Hjelmström <sm6cvx@hjelmstrom.se>; Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:10:58 +0200; Agree 100 % with Ed N1UR. Its the same situation on 6 meters. Most expeditions go ONLY FT 8 nowadays.It gives more QSO:s ,it looks like.And more or less no options to find good openings on old modes.; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00105.html (11,474 bytes)
59. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: k1zm--- via Topband <topband@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 11:20:24 +0000 (UTC); Hi Again Folks Been reading all the mail and WOW - I did not mean for this debate to take over the 160m reflector again. But I CAN ADD something to this discussion. So I will.... YES - THERE IS FOR; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00106.html (10,732 bytes)
60. Re: Topband: 160 (score: 1): Author: Artek Manuals <Manuals@ArtekManuals.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 08:22:21 -0400; To further Paul's point , CW "readers" have been around for decades. Automating the reply process on CW seems to me to be a "relatively simple" programing exercise with a USB keyer. Heck by adding th; /archives//html/Topband/2019-08/msg00107.html (13,535 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]