Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+CQWW160\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+CQWW160\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: UA6LV <ua6lv@dx.ru>; Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:38:02 +0300; Dear fellow contesters. Just one week left before the one of the most interesting and exciting contests CQ WW 160 CW, so we would like to know how the contest community feels about LOG checking of th; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00319.html (7,953 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: Steve Ireland <vk6vz@arach.net.au>; Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:52:50 +0800; Hi Vlad Well done to you and the other RN/UA6 blokes! The CQ 160 rules (particularly, exchanges between stations) could do with a MAJOR overhaul/modernisation. I hope Dave K4JRB will take you up on t; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00370.html (7,790 bytes)
3. Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: UA6LV <ua6lv@dx.ru>; Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:59:43 +0300; We thank everybody for comments and messages. The wide response to our message confirms that the problem really exists, but fortunately there is the hope that Bob K3EST agreed to help and they (toget; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00371.html (8,087 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:12:50 -0500; Let's see if I am following this thread..... 1.) The logs are not checked, so the exchange and operating rules of a contest I remember working as far back as 1963 suddenly needs major changes to corr; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00373.html (7,828 bytes)
5. Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:30:37 -0500; W8JI: is three days before the contest starts. Actually it's a perfect time! I suspect logs for this running of the CQ 160 will be scrutinized like they *NEVER* have before, thanks to UA6LV and crew.; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00375.html (7,444 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:49:36 -0800; I think it should be pointed out that the problem here wasn't the log checking. The log checking did determine that half of the log was "incorrect" and the QSOs were taken out. Perhaps K4JRB is guil; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00378.html (7,798 bytes)
7. Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: charles Lewis <s9ss160m@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:51:01 -0800 (PST); Even a simple 160 M contest exchange is very difficult to copy in all the QRN here. If the exchange were made more difficult for me to copy, I would not attempt to do make S&P contacts as I have in t; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00383.html (7,770 bytes)
8. Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: Petr Ouednk <indians@seznam.cz>; Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:34:39 +0100 (CET); Dears, as I know that I will definitely not be QRV during the CQ WW 160m contest this week cause of big family troubles > I would like to wish to all Top banders good luck and famous condx with a lot; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00385.html (8,000 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: "Pitman, Zoltan, VF-NL" <zoltan.pitman@vodafone.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:52:25 +0100; if a log doesn't contain a single two-way verifiable and correct contact, yes, they should be thrown out IMO. 73, Zoli HA1AG _______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topba; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00401.html (7,947 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: CQWW160 (score: 1): Author: "ian" <g0fyd@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:22:22 -0000; Dear All My experience from the North West Coast of the UK. TCVR FT1000D PWR 200W Antenna Rec/TX INV L vertical section 52ft. Garden Size 60x20ft. Radials about a dozen with only 2 extended full size; /archives//html/Topband/2006-01/msg00407.html (8,779 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]