Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Board\s+votes\s+\-\s+get\s+the\s+facts\s+right\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Board\s+votes\s+\-\s+get\s+the\s+facts\s+right\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Board votes - get the facts right (score: 1): Author: tree@kkn.net (Tree); Date: Tue Jul 23 10:09:49 2002; There were two differnet votes. One was about the section news (which was a roll call vote). For the contest line scores, I quote the earlier post: Therefore it would seem the current analysis of who; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00334.html (6,919 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Board votes - get the facts right (score: 1): Author: aa4nu@ix.netcom.com (Billy Cox); Date: Tue Jul 23 15:46:21 2002; Interesting point ... which raises the question of WHY did they address the Section News issue in a different manner than the Contest issue? Other than political "protection" ... as they knew exactl; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-07/msg00359.html (8,047 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]