Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CR3L\s+Should\s+Reconsider\s+Submission\s+Catagory\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:26:22 +0100
Jorge, and this is ok for you? Yes as it is perfectly compliant with the rules (... you may use ... not ... you must use ... spotting assistance) thus nothing wrong with it. I would even applaud them
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00257.html (9,929 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:40:23 +0100
Hi Fabio, check the probable The point is: it *IS* compliant with the rules! So what exactly should the software check? ;-) 73, Olli - DH8BQA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00261.html (10,777 bytes)

23. [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 19:33:59 -0500
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsmanship It's pretty obvious to me the definition of sportsmanship is different in Europe is different than it is here in the United States. Read the above link a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00263.html (7,413 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:58:07 -0600
One could argue poor sportsmanship is being displayed by those kvetching about their win, especially absent any facts. A definition of poor sportsmanship in the link you provide is "breaking the rule
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00272.html (8,552 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 22:19:40 -0500
Kelly, It's much more than just trying to gain an unfair advantage. Please reread the the first paragraph which contains words like "respect , fairness, ethics and fellowship". But the last one is th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00274.html (10,489 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:20:42 -0800
You are kidding, right? A M/2 stations beats the pants out of a M/M station and now the M/2 is a sore loser?! PJ2T had every opportunity to win. Kudos to the CR3L team for doing such a great job. For
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00279.html (9,293 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Michael Schulz <mschulz@creative-chaos.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:09:51 -0800
They could only be a sore looser if indeed they did loose, but they didn't :). But then again the words referred to below don't seem to apply universally. Respect - show it to those who competed and
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00283.html (12,164 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Ken Low <kenke3x@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:58:32 -0500
"Kelly, It's much more than just trying to gain an unfair advantage. Please reread the the first paragraph which contains words like "respect , fairness, ethics and fellowship". But the last one is t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00291.html (11,307 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 09:38:26 -0500
They did lose in M2X. They then checked 3830 and switched to MM, which they won. Hope they enjoy their consolation prize. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00293.html (12,465 bytes)

30. [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:47:41 -0500
I don't think it's fair for some of you to single me out for my opinion on this subject. There are many who agree with my opinion, but on the other hand there are some that don't. It's also silly tha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00294.html (8,512 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:21:27 +0100
Will this ever stop? They did lose in M2X. They then checked 3830 and switched to MM, which they won. Hope they enjoy their consolation prize. _______________________________________________ CQ-Conte
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00298.html (9,201 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Maarten van Rossum <pd2r.maarten@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:21:43 +0100
Jeff, why do you only comment on the part where Mike wrote: "They could only be a sore looser if indeed they did loose, but they didn't"? Yes, they would have lost the M/2 category, good point. But w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00303.html (14,380 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Should Reconsider Submission Catagory (score: 1)
Author: Kevan Nason <knason00@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:21:42 -0500
Maarten, I believe I was the first to mention "sore loser", not Jeff. He shouldn't bear the brunt of return comments on that one. Kevan N4XL _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-12/msg00306.html (9,491 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu