| To: | "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted |
| From: | "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:12:32 -0400 |
| List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
Only if ARRL wants to exclude Skimmer from it's contests. Who's to say the rules aren't intentionally vague - mabye to encourage innovation? 73 de Al, KE1FO On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mts.net> wrote: > I would suggest the ARRL CAC has some work to do, as it could be argued > that > the rules of ARRL contests do not restrict Skimmer use. > 73, kelly > ve4xt _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Move WPX Back to 30 Hours?, Larry K4AB |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted, Aldewey |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted, Joe Subich, W4TV |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted, Alfred Frugoli |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |