Topband: Looking for a few Last states on 160m

[Jorge Diez - CX6VM]

Hello Hardy,

I worked WA7LNW, N7JW and K7CA but none of them use LOTW

I have 49 confirmed in LOTW on 160 mts. I want Utah confirmed in LOTW
because it´s easy for me to get WAS without shipping QSL´s that maybe will
be lost.

Thanks!
Jorge
CX6VM/CW5W

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Hardy Landskov [mailto:n7rt at cox.net] 
Enviado el: Martes, 24 de Enero de 2012 01:13 a.m.
Para: cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com
Asunto: Re: Topband: Looking for a few Last states on 160m

Hi Jorge,
I am surprised you have not worked WA7LNW in contests. He is very active. 
Check your logs
73 Hardy N7RT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jorge Diez CX6VM" <cx6vm.jorge at gmail.com>
To: "Steven Raas" <sjraas at gmail.com>; <topband-bounces at contesting.com>; 
"Topband" <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Looking for a few Last states on 160m


Hi

I need Utah LOTW station also

Hopefully will be saturday night in CQ160 contest, hope to catch it for my 
160 WAS

73
Jorge
CX6VM
Enviado desde mi BlackBerry® device de Antel

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Raas <sjraas at gmail.com>
Sender: topband-bounces at contesting.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:50:05
To: <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Looking for a few Last states on 160m

I will be on for the CQWW 160 most of the dusk-to-dawn hours. I'll be
looking for them for sure. I will admit I was a tad bothered when I read
the CQWW160 Rules and found that only Multi/SOHP can use the cluster ( and
still submit a score ). I would think that the SOLP guys would 'benefit'
from it more, and thats when I made that post. Not a big deal and I can
even think of a few reasons of mabey why this is the case, regardless if I
agree with those reasons.

Thanks again everyone,

-Steve Raas
N2JDQ
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK 

-----
Se certificó que el correo no contiene virus.
Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es
Versión: 2012.0.1901 / Base de datos de virus: 2109/4763 - Fecha de la
versión: 24/01/2012