ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:40:09 -0700, Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- While I am in agreement generally, please be careful with naming names. I remember vividl
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- You say "au contraire" but then go on to confirm the problem still exists. I would be hard pressed to think of another well-known, serious defect which has been
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:12:21 -0600, "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The very basis of civilization is that people must be able to trust each other to do t
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The way it is now, the CK means essentially "when did you become a ham?" vs your proposed "when did you acquire this particular call sign?" I think the first is
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The station. But you are right, it should be made more specific. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contes
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:12:22 -0600, "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- My reply answered the question fully. Please read it again. If you do not agree with m
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:17:53 -0000, "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- You guys are arguing over the wrong thing. The rules say: "4.4. Check (the last two d
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:19:58 +0000, Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Agreed. The rules are very clear. They ask for the year you were first licensed. If yo
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Yes it is. I'm sure the people who have subscribed since last year will find it useful. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Mal is right. Just as in non-ham life, the rule is what counts, not what someone at the ARRL says about it. Just think: If you were hauled into court for doing 9
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:57:37 -0500, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the ARRL has not clarified the rule. Until t
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:01:36 -0000, "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- When SS first began, the operator was required to copy the other guys exchange, repea
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:30:23 -0500, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Do you think it was a bad idea to try to level the playing field by creating HP/LP/QRP ca
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Trying to jigger the rules so that everyone has the same final score is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about having classes of competition so t
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- I'm all in favor of encouraging more operators and different modes, but I don't think multiplying scores is a good way to do it. Your policy would indeed encoura
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- There are several approaches to this, any of which would work. Here's my thinking: My first concern is reliability. The last thing I want is a failure during a c
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:59 -0600, Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com> wrote: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Nonsense. You might as well argue that HP is no different from LP or QRP. It's just o
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- No antenna system can do what a second radio can do: Allow you to listen while transmitting, and do it on any band you like. While you are calling CQ on one band
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- No, we don't. Nobody is calling for all those categories. Just as adding an amplifier gives a great advantage, adding a second radio gives a great advantage. Con
The RTTY contest community in general is heavily in favor of separate one and two radio categories. See the poll results at: http://www.rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html Scroll