CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?

To: "'Mike Tessmer'" <Mike.Tessmer@hillmangroup.com>,<CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?
From: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:52:31 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Back then you had to type a letter to the NCJ or talk about it at Dayton.
Now you just have to hit reply all.

Randy, K5ZD 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Tessmer
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 10:08 PM
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 1980:  It is widely known and accepted that most of the Top 
> 10 (and more)in SS use two radios in one scheme or another.  
> There are no calls for separate categories.
> 
> 2005:  It is widely known and accepted that most of the Top 
> 10 (and more) in SS use two radios in one scheme or another.  
> There are calls for separate categories.
> 
> What changed?
> 
> 
> 73, Mike K9NW
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>