Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:K0HB@uswest.net: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Field Day Novices (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans - K0HB)
Date: Mon Jan 10 13:03:18 2000
I hope so. There will still be Novices and Techs with 'old' Novice privs. Let's try to keep them involved in mainstream activities. 73, Hans, K0HB -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-01/msg00020.html (6,710 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] Contester K3WW makes Philadelphia Paper (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans -- K0HB)
Date: Tue Feb 15 12:59:13 2000
Read all about it at: http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/2000/Feb/15/magazine/HAM15.htm -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/ Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contes
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2000-02/msg00073.html (6,359 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] Re: SS-LOG Super-Check (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Radio K0HB)
Date: Sat Mar 6 21:58:18 1999
WX0B. This, in my mind, is *PRECISELY* why SS *should* be checked very strenuously. SS has it's roots in traffic handling, and the emphasis of the contest has always been a "copying" contest. Rather
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00059.html (7,044 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] SS checking.. (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Radio K0HB)
Date: Sun Mar 7 21:07:41 1999
Whoa! Hold it right there, Pilgrim! I haven't seen anything in the rules which says "you must show up in at least 4 logs or you don't count". In fact, if that is so, it takes away a tried-and-true SS
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00087.html (10,713 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] SS checking.. (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Radio K0HB)
Date: Mon Mar 8 03:51:15 1999
As I read that, calls can be absent for the database for two reasons: 1) They are judged incorrect. 2) They were found in less than 4 logs. In all the explanations I've see so far, it isn't clear to
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00096.html (9,841 bytes)

6. [CQ-Contest] Supercheck-partial? (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans Brakob)
Date: Mon Mar 8 08:42:20 1999
This message will probably make me about as popular as screen doors on a submarine, but hey, I've been flamed by the best.... The 'mini-flap' about too-tough checking in the SS contest just triggered
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00102.html (6,914 bytes)

7. [CQ-Contest] Re: Sending the wrong exchange (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans K0HB)
Date: Mon Mar 8 10:35:33 1999
Behold, a new age! Contesters who can copy an exchange! 73, de Hans, K0HB (Shields up, Scotty!) -- ~~~ Observation the morning after the contest: "A logging computer lets you make more mistakes faste
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00107.html (8,591 bytes)

8. [CQ-Contest] Re: [ct-user] Supercheck-partial? (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans K0HB)
Date: Mon Mar 8 11:30:44 1999
That's a good question, Ron. I think it really depends on who you ask. My "thing" is that "contesters ought to copy what is sent", so for me, I'd like to see "supercheck partial" go away, along with
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00110.html (7,585 bytes)

9. [CQ-Contest] Re: Sending the wrong exchange (score: 1)
Author: k0hb@uswest.net (Hans K0HB)
Date: Mon Mar 8 11:37:33 1999
Why? (This is not a smart-@$$ question.) So long as my submitted log accurately shows what I sent for each exchange, and your log contains the same information received, neither of us loses the QSO.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00111.html (8,504 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] Log checking--report of collateral damage? (score: 1)
Author: K0HB@uswest.net (Hans K0HB)
Date: Mon Mar 8 15:20:54 1999
Actually, I feel exactly the opposite! In most contests (with the exception of November Sweepstakes) I consider myself a casual operator, but take some pride in trying to turn in the mythical golden
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00125.html (9,181 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu