Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+2x4\s+County\s+designators\s+\(was\s+Contest\s+Rules\)\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:43 +0000
I get in the state QSO parties primarily for the fun of chasing county multipliers -- maybe someday leading to a County Hunters certificate. As soon as I encountered my first "multi-state" QSO Party
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00133.html (9,545 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Robert Chudek - K&Oslash;RC <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:38:09 -0500
Bud, et.al., A new feature was just added to the QSO Party module in N1MM Logger (v6.10.4). When you have the County Multiplier window open, you can click the county abbreviation and it will populate
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00140.html (8,376 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:04:19 -0500 (CDT)
Bud, with all due respect, I fail to see this as something ?imperative,? at least for the vast majority of single state QSO parties. Let?s back up a second and think about why we?re using these abbre
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00141.html (12,117 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:55:31 -0000
I'm the guy who started this thread and I'm still waiting, either publicly or privately, for someone to explain what was wrong with the old system. When something works so well for more than 20 years
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00144.html (14,143 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: N6KI Dennis Vernacchia <n6ki_73@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:37:10 -0700
Leave the old Abbrevs in place SDIE Sucks ( Will cause many repeats and loss of dits in noise on 40, 80 and 160.) I say all CA participants should vote on what THEY want I will not use it DQ me if yo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00145.html (14,172 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:01:23 -0500
or privately, for someone to explain what was wrong with the old system. and rules. Maybe someone can invite a high 'mukity-muck' from NCCC to enlighten us. While you seem to be attempting to create
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00146.html (9,320 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Mike Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:07:42 -0400
It is going to be a *hard* sell to both the contesters and sponsors of state QSO parties that it is imperative to them to change their designators so that it is convenient for county hunters only! Ar
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00149.html (11,067 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Ed <k4sb@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:10:54 +0000
-- Guys, I'm having a hard time understanding this. From my point of view, all it does is add an extra letter to the exchange. I realize some counties in some States have a problem with similar name
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00150.html (9,150 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: 4X4KF <4x4kf@iarc.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:46:13 +0200
Hi OM N7MAL You probably don't know human nature. The problem with the old system is that it is old. The problem with some humans is that they have to change for the sake of change. They are like a d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00151.html (16,742 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:58:17 -0400
"Multi-state" QSO Party weekends were mentioned specifically and that's the proper contest. The negative consequences of making changes to well-established single-state QSO parties have been noted. W
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00154.html (10,357 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules) (score: 1)
Author: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:53:16 -0400
Actually Ron, I think that this statement cuts to the heart of the issue. I'm still taking heat - from around the world - for those additions. Which is why I get a little amused when I hear about spo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-10/msg00157.html (9,616 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu