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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+A\s+\"valid\"\s+QSO\?\?\?\?\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:09:24 +0000; Jim K9YC wrote, "A valid contact is the exchange of callsigns and one additional piece of information, followed by acknowledgement by both stations. When running QRP at the limits of propagation, tha; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00387.html (7,569 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: "Joel Harrison" <w5zn@w5zn.org>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:19:34 -0600; I would be very interested to know "who" at ARRL HQ told you than and holds that position! Is it someone in a position to render an "ARRL position"? I have always been told, have understood and follo; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00388.html (8,283 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:21:05 +0000; I believe the gentlemen I conversed with would qualify as holding a position, Joel. I always understood a valid QSO to include receiving the otherham's call sign and the RST but both gentlemen stated; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00391.html (10,102 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: nn4t@comcast.net; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:28:18 +0000 (UTC); For DXCC purposes a signal report is not required. In submitting a contact for credit only the call signs of the two stations, DXCC entity, time, date and mode are required. I realized this is only f; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00392.html (10,781 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:33:00 +0000; Well, that squares up with what I was told...wonder about the WAS award.... For DXCC purposes a signal report is not required. In submitting a contact for credit only the call signs of the two statio; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00393.html (11,257 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Dave Clouser <dave@nz3m.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:40:57 -0500; FWIW LOTW only looks for callsign, date, time and mode. Nothing else is needed for a confirmation. All other information is collected from your station location information in the TQSL software. This; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00394.html (11,741 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:49:07 -0500; Ahem... some notable contests require more than one additional piece of information. And the acknowledgement of which K9YC speaks can vary greatly depending on context and ham. Many contests involve; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00395.html (9,504 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:53:26 +0000; Again - I submitted a follow-on comment....I'm referring to a non-contest, general, run of the mill QSO...one would could be "counted" for a DXCC or WAS award. Ahem... some notable contests require m; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00396.html (9,693 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Jorge Diez CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:22:37 -0300; Hi Rod Ups, sorry, didn't notice that reply only to you 73, Jorge Enviado desde mi iPhone _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00399.html (10,678 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:37:03 -0500; Jorge - Some contests have explicit instructions about how to deal with stations that didn't send a valid exchange. For example, the CQ WW FAQ says we are supposed to log the zone they should've sent; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00401.html (12,019 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Jorge Diez CX6VM <cx6vm.jorge@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:11:34 -0300; Hello Tim Thanks for the clarification, this QSO will not change nothing, just few qsos from Deep South happy to participate and work some friends, this is a date that not always possible for me to b; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00402.html (13,617 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:16:55 -0500; When did this become the QRP reflector? There has to be some better place for this expanding and off topic dialog than here. 73 Ed N1UR _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.conte; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00403.html (8,452 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:48:07 -0500; In these days of deregulation, a QSO can be whatever you want it to be. Operating another station using your callsign, having another ham make the contact for you or even on a chat room where little; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00406.html (8,705 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: VE3FH <ve3fh@yahoo.ca>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:18:55 -0800; As the song goes, it's sad but true... HNY Julio VE3FH Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00407.html (8,429 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: A "valid" QSO???? (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:37:13 -0800; Joel is a Past President of ARRL and a very active operator. I suspect that he knows what he's talking about. :) The definition I've cited is published and accepted by those hams chasing very difficu; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00410.html (10,177 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]