Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Fw\:\s+Re\:\s+59$9$\s+all\s+the\s+time\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Fw\:\s+Re\:\s+59$9$\s+all\s+the\s+time\!\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Fw: Re: 59(9) all the time! (score: 1): Author: "k7qq@netzero.com" <k7qq@netzero.com>; Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:06:27 GMT; I don't think that the ARRL can be consider at fault for 59/9 reports I rembember using these type of reports because it was a big bother with the paper logs to enter each RS/T individually so I woul; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00376.html (8,631 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Re: 59(9) all the time! (score: 1): Author: "Ted Bryant" <W4NZ@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:45:28 -0400; I remember in discussions of contesting strategies during the '70's, there was the idea that the better signal report you sent the other guy, the "snappier" his response to you would be, saving you t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-06/msg00379.html (8,368 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]