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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Self\s+Spotting\s*$/: 134 ]

Total 134 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting (score: 1): Author: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:41:12 -0800 (PST); -- Original Message -- A quick email to the sponsor should produce the only answer that really matters. -- To add to Mark's words, it would be nice to have the answer posted to the list by an authori; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-03/msg00085.html (8,506 bytes)
42. [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Paul DeWitte K9OT" <k9ot@mhtc.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:37:19 -0600; With all of the feed back about phone arranged QSOs, a station that I am familiar with only by call was spotted. I looked up the call of the spotter out of curiosity, and the call of the spotter was; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00478.html (7,013 bytes)
43. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:03:21 -0500; Not neccesarily. Obviously the spotter wished to remain anonymous, but this could mean it was someone who was hiding to protect their own "non-assisted" entry. It's sad the lengths that some people a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00482.html (8,124 bytes)
44. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:40:20 -0700; Usually you can do a trace on the IP address and get a good idea of where the spotter is from. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http:/; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00484.html (8,612 bytes)
45. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Yuri VE3DZ" <ve3dz@rigexpert.net>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:59:08 -0500; ...only if you are lucky and the spotter is using static IP. But in MOST cases it's dynamic IP or proxy servers. 73 Yuri VE3DZ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00486.html (7,970 bytes)
46. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:29:34 -0600 (CST); True. But that doesn't tell you who the anonymous spotter is or was. And frankly, if I were of the mindset to use a phony call to self-spot or otherwise post misleading spots (not that I recommend th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00490.html (9,973 bytes)
47. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:09:55 +0000; To see some of what is possible for tracing self spots go back to my spotting reports after cqww cw and ssb last fall in the cq-contest archives. Usually if someone is spotting themselves with fake c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-01/msg00497.html (11,214 bytes)
48. [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:03:06 -0500; Hi All...we received an e-mail from the ARRL Contest director early yesterday evening regarding a spot he had observed on the packet cluster....a local ham in the Atlanta area had spotted us on 160m.; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00292.html (7,910 bytes)
49. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:38:11 -0500; You have expressed this directly to the sender, haven't you? [And what is "the full wrath," anyway? DQ?] Frankly, under these circumstances, one would think that an email like this sent to a less tha; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00303.html (9,577 bytes)
50. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: Tim Gardner <n9lf@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:40:33 -0800 (PST); Rick, It is entirely possible (and I would suggest, entirely LIKELY) that this email is fake and did NOT come from the ARRL Contest Director - or anyone else at ARRL. Spoofing the source of an email; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00305.html (9,569 bytes)
51. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>; Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:26:16 +0000; Hold it, hold it: Rick, consider the possibility that the e-mail you received is NOT from whom it claimed, but someone else with a grudge, attempting to get you all hot under the collar. The thing to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00315.html (8,997 bytes)
52. Re: [CQ-Contest] self spotting (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:01:12 -0500; I don't blame you, Rick - that's painfully naive and demeaning to you and your team. He should start by reviewing K1TTT's excellent post-contest analysis of spots on DX Summit, to find out who's real; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-02/msg00334.html (9,445 bytes)
53. [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: Jim CASSIDY <jc_ki7y@q.com>; Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:15:46 +0000; Seems to me that self spotting is similar to CQing on a band with a second transmitter as well as being thru the internet. I suppose there would be no problem with that if allowed in an assisted clas; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-07/msg00277.html (6,960 bytes)
54. [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting (score: 1): Author: kr2q@optimum.net; Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:31:11 +0000 (GMT); If you want to know "for sure," as the contest sponsor. But generally speaking, self-spotting is a taboo behavior (I think it clearly demonstrates "no class" - pun intended). de Doug KR2Q ___________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00263.html (6,591 bytes)
55. [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:28:13 -0700; I have always felt that self spotting was something that should not be allowed... although I am hard pressed to explain exactly why. I guess it falls into using non-amateur communications for facilit; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00271.html (7,849 bytes)
56. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: "hank.k8dd" <hank.k8dd@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:20:14 -0400; I've experienced that several times from Central & South America where the rate meter jumped from 0 to 100 .... more realistically from maybe 20 to 150 or so in 30 seconds due to "hitting the cluster; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00286.html (8,382 bytes)
57. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com; Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:05:54 EDT; A thought: What if the worldwide cluster system allowed X number of spots per hour for any one station, or a minimum time between spots, for any station, whether spotted by others or self spotted? Wh; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00287.html (9,909 bytes)
58. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:52:12 +0100; There is absolutely no case where a single self spot wouldn´t be bad. I repeat "not a single one" period! Jim SM2EKM _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00292.html (8,168 bytes)
59. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:41:24 -0800; That's precisely why spotting (of any kind) should not be permitted in contests. Self-spotting is merely the equivalent of calling CQ on non-amateur communications which facilitate contest QSOs. If w; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00293.html (8,041 bytes)
60. Re: [CQ-Contest] Self spotting (score: 1): Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>; Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:01:32 -0600; If self spotting is bad for contests... then why isn't it bad for daily stuff too? I'm not suggesting selfspotting be allowed or condoned... just wondering out loud, the advertisements are proported; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00301.html (8,879 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]