Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rhummel\@monad\.net\s+$Rob\s+Hummel$\:\s+\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+0\-point\s+discussion\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rhummel\@monad\.net\s+$Rob\s+Hummel$\:\s+\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+0\-point\s+discussion\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. rhummel@monad.net (Rob Hummel): [CQ-Contest] WPX 0-point discussion (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T. A. Russell); Date: Thu Apr 3 07:41:07 1997; Please don't count me as one of those lobbying to change the WPX 0-point rule. As 2-time LP/AB champ, I see nothing wrong with the way the scoring is now. (OF COURSE YOU DON'T....WITH A RARE PREFIX,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-04/msg00031.html (9,020 bytes)
2. rhummel@monad.net (Rob Hummel): [CQ-Contest] WPX 0-point discussion (score: 1): Author: rhummel@monad.net (Rob Hummel); Date: Thu Apr 3 20:23:46 1997; NK4G has some comments on my feelings about 0-pt QSOs. Trey also questioned some of my opinions. Here's some illumination. Some real vacuous statements here. 1. Unfair advantage? Hardly. I EARNED tha; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1997-04/msg00041.html (9,939 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]