[CQ-Contest] NAQP Categories

[Scott Stembaugh]

I agree.  With my very modest setup it is nice to be able to find a
frequency lower that xx.050 to try and run a little and not have to fight
the alligators.

73,
--scott



On 1/16/06, K5ZM <k5zm at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Do that, and NA loses it's unique appeal. (IMO, YMMV) It becomes 'just
> another contest' with very little to differentiate it from all the other
> domestic tests.
>
> 'zm
>
>
> --
> www.k5zm.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> > bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ku8e at bellsouth.net
> > Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2006 7:22 PM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Categories
> >
> >   With all the discussion going on about big gun vs little guns, guest
> operators
> > etc.. in NAQP has anyone ever thought of incorporating a tribander/wires
> class
> > into the
> >  the contest rules. It seems like this works well for WPX .
> >
> >   Personally, I would like to see NAQP have a high , low and QRP
> category.
> It
> > would then have something for everyones taste.
> >
> >
> >   73, Jeff
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>



--
------
N9LJX
radio.n9ljx at gmail.com
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~scott/