Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Is\s+it\s+a\s+time\s+to\s+change\s+rules\s+for\s+HQ\s+stnsin\s+IARUcontest\s+\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Is\s+it\s+a\s+time\s+to\s+change\s+rules\s+for\s+HQ\s+stnsin\s+IARUcontest\s+\?\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules for HQ stnsin IARUcontest ? (score: 1): Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>; Date: 16 Jul 2006 20:18:18 -0500; This would be a SERIOUS problem for HQ stations in large countries and/or with large ham populations. (i.e., USA, Russia, Japan) I don't know that we would have bothered with 160 meters at all at W1A; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00200.html (8,702 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it a time to change rules for HQ stnsin IARUcontest ? (score: 1): Author: Laurent Ferracci <laurent@ferracci.org>; Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:32:58 +0200; Why not reduce the final score of HQ station of the percentage of national QSO they did ? Laurent, F1JKJ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-07/msg00211.html (8,752 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]