- 61. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
- Author: "Cooper, Stewart" <coopers@odl.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:26:33 -0000
- Name names. This is a claim which would be difficult to uphold. I can't see what is wrong with that either, provided transmissions do not overlap. Stewart GM0F --Original Message-- From: cq-contest-
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00018.html (13,741 bytes)
- 62. [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
- Author: dennis o'connor <k8do@mailblocks.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:27:54 -0800
- Second Place is First Loser [disclaimer] Just kidding [/disclaimer] ** Even kidding it is just plain wrong... I operated CQ WW CW, part time... I knew that with a few wires for antennas I would not b
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00019.html (9,444 bytes)
- 63. [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
- Author: dennis o'connor <k8do@mailblocks.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:06:34 -0800
- Case in point: CQWW this past weekend, I invited a college age friend came over to watch me operate 80M SB SO LP UNassisted... Boring for him of course, after about 3 minutes... So, I said, why don't
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00021.html (9,951 bytes)
- 64. RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again (score: 1)
- Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:32:29 -00
- Good thing it was a CQ contest, not an ARRL contest. 73, de Hans, K0HB _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/m
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-12/msg00029.html (8,409 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu