Search String: Display: Description: Sort:


References: [ 493 ]

Total 493 documents matching your query.

121. [CQ-Contest] Another Year of SS Disections (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:14:27 -0500
It always amazes me. No other contest generates more back and forth and beating dead horses than SS. I think it is just about the only contest some of this group does and then they have a year to tal
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-11/msg00327.html (7,592 bytes)

122. Re: [CQ-Contest] Operating Ethics for Multi-Op contest (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:03:41 -0400
"I've had SSTV'ers try to run me from any freq within 10 KHZ of 14.230. I really doubt, knowing the claiber of ops down there last week, that they would stay within a couple Kc of 14.230. I think 14.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00180.html (8,559 bytes)

123. Re: [CQ-Contest] Russian DX Contest Log Checking (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:12:54 -0400
I have never operated the RDXC and am now certain that I will not do so seriously after reading this "shocking" information about the scoring and penalties. I do know that when I have tuned around an
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00183.html (9,780 bytes)

124. Re: [CQ-Contest] An Examination of K1TTT's Reports (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:47:57 -0400
I could not disagree more with KV1Y's post. I for one think the service that David K1TTT provides to the contesting community is enormous and greatly appreciated. The number of people around the worl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00265.html (9,131 bytes)

125. Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl dx ssb spotting report (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:00:40 -0400
N4ZR said: "In the last case, a whopping Multi-two score, a majority of the alleged self-spots were actually cheerleading by a relative of one of the ops." I hope your not implying that this makes it
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00267.html (8,874 bytes)

126. Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX Operating Time (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:31:33 -0400
I sure hope that all of the people commenting on the on and off times calculations for the WPX contest actually GET ON AND OPERATE the contest. Ed N1UR _______________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00376.html (6,644 bytes)

127. Re: [CQ-Contest] Ethics (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:01:31 -0400
You must be assuming that the log shows frequency data. In my case, I am using older software that logs all 20M QSOs as 14000. In general, I disagree with the responsibility of the receiving station
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00077.html (9,420 bytes)

128. Re: [CQ-Contest] IC-7200 for travel contesting (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:51:09 -0400
Personally, I find an FT897 with 250 hz CW filter and a very lightweight manual tuner and extreamly lightweight and cost effective package. Worked over 6000 QSOs from Spratly last year using it with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-04/msg00359.html (7,996 bytes)

129. Re: [CQ-Contest] Control Operator (score: 1)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:19:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
"This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station." This is widely interpretted across the contesting community to mean that if
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00149.html (7,410 bytes)

130. Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:45:25 -0400
I must say that for years, I have read in this reflector the discussion of the "multitudes" of "casual contesters" that would become serious with smaller competitive time requirements. Yet IARU (24 h
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00293.html (10,150 bytes)

131. Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:55:35 -0400
None...I don't like many of those contest. But I am not advocating short contest windows. I enjoy the 36 and 48 hour contests. Ed N1UR How many shortened-time contests did you operate in 2008 Ed? I d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00303.html (10,472 bytes)

132. Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:10:38 -0400
Chris, Its plenty of interest. That wasn't my point. The point is for all of the people on this reflector who are interested in these categories to join in and COMPETITIVELY contest in the 12 and 24
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00306.html (11,013 bytes)

133. [CQ-Contest] Field Day Comments (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:46:38 -0400
I continue to be impressed by the Field Day activity that occurs every year on the bands. It truly shows ham radio is alive and well to witness it on the air. I was on for approximately 18 hours and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00435.html (8,687 bytes)

134. Re: [CQ-Contest] Station Inspections (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:21:17 -0400
Personally, it doesn't bother me if someone wants to come and observe me contesting. It would surprise me if my station was deemed "important enough" for someone to take their time off of actually co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-08/msg00255.html (10,585 bytes)

135. Re: [CQ-Contest] Single Op + Pit Crew (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:29:00 -0400
Personally, I don't even have a problem with the full time advisor...just have him or her keep their hands off the dial, computer, key, and PTT switch. Ed N1UR _______________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-10/msg00061.html (7,138 bytes)

136. Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU R1 proposals (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:14:50 -0500
Since the most popular Ham Radio Activity around the world is contesting, I would like to propose that we EXPAND the contest activity to all of the HF Bands. Why should 30,000 hams be constrained wit
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00058.html (8,398 bytes)

137. Re: [CQ-Contest] Rookie Roundup Scoring (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:05:22 -0500
What a poor idea this is guys. Not that of a rookie contest, that is noble. But to have a rookie contest that is so diconnected from normal contesting is illogical. Imagine a rookie comes over to a v
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-02/msg00144.html (8,606 bytes)

138. [CQ-Contest] Contesting On Line - Used to be Rookie Roundup Scoring (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:53:31 -0500
The problem with this statement: "Nope - no nefarious or ulterior motives. Just an opportunity to create a new contest for our newest contesters in a way that is more aligned with their backgrounds w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-02/msg00165.html (7,912 bytes)

139. [CQ-Contest] Rookie Round-Up (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:13:29 -0400
Does this strike anyone else as ridiculously complicated for newbies who should be more concentrated on making HF Radio contacts than what server they are uploading to. Can we stick to HF guys..and l
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-03/msg00375.html (8,089 bytes)

140. [CQ-Contest] RDXC (score: 1)
Author: "Edward" <>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:25:25 -0400
"Wonder why people can not just treat the rule as a part of a game? At the same time they understand that everyone is affected equally and the winners list will be just the same with or without the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-04/msg00070.html (7,286 bytes)

This search system is powered by Namazu