Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+R\:\s+QRP\s+\-\s+Get\s+Over\s+It\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "IK2DZN - Claudio Astorri" <ik2dzn@astorri.it>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:37:15 +0100
Hi Tom, I am a keen LOW POWER (not QRP) guy but, as you expected, I think that your way of treating the "QRP Thing" is more than unacceptable. If we'd follow your very bad example we could very easil
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00029.html (10,879 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 07:50:31 -0600
Claudio, While I can see how some of Tom's statements may ruffle some feathers, I can't help but agree with the three main points of his argument: 1. Use skill to overcome QRP. That's the whole point
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00032.html (12,677 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:50:13 -0800
I'm not Tom but please allow me to respond anyway. Nonsense. More nonsense. No. In the US at least, all stations are held to the same standards regarding bandwidth. A QRP station a kilometer away spl
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00033.html (10,149 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:21:02 -0500
Wow, an Italian station talking about QRP! This got my attention! I have used QRP before in contests just to make things interesting, especially for FD, but I am one who objects to the "/QRP". I neve
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00037.html (8,639 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 04 Jan 2006 09:24:09 -0600
It should be noted that the USA QSL bureau does not handle domestic cards - I cannot send Tom a card through the bureau. I guess that's different from QSL bureau practice in most countries. (that sai
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00038.html (8,270 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "VE5ZX" <ve5zx@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:58:27 -0600
Can some one point me to document(s) that state it is illegal to sign callsign/QRP? tnx Sylvan Katz - VE5ZX Saskatoon, SK _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-C
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00041.html (7,721 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:47:49 -00
I don't know about the rules in Canada, so I can't comment. In the USA, signing <yourcall>/QRP falls under FCC rule &sect;97.119(c) "(c) One or more indicators may be included with the call sign. Ea
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00042.html (8,041 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:21:08 +0100
In Germany, probably the whole Region 1, only /m /mm /am /p are legal 73 Peter Von: "VE5ZX" <ve5zx@hotmail.com> _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00045.html (8,337 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "VE5ZX" <ve5zx@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:33:29 -0600
Tnx Hans. That is sort of what I thought. I presume it is the same here. OTOH - I suspect it is legal anywhere to send callsign<wordspace>/QRP 73 Syl :) Sylvan Katz - VE5ZX Saskatoon, SK ___________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00046.html (7,230 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:21:22 -0500
Yes, a reply via bureau should be done when possible, but I believe Tom was referring to U.S. ops who send plain-old postcards with no return postage to other U.S. ops. We do not have a domestic bur
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00048.html (9,933 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: John Laney <k4bai@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:17:34 -0500
I have read, I think in the QCWA Quarterly, a strong assertion by a retired FCC employee (W3BE?) that the /M and /MM designators in common use are illegal for FCC licenses now that England and Scotla
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00051.html (10,310 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Steven Williams" <k9gx@n4gn.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 03:07:54 -0000
Doug...and all it is difficult to believe any U.S. operator gets enough domestic PSE QSL cards without return postage to be a financial problem. But I think Tom is complaining about the principle, no
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00060.html (9,523 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:51:01 -0800
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When it comes to rare QSLs, I live in the least desired state in the least desired country in the world, with the possible exceptio
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00061.html (10,241 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Andrei Nevis <v49a@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Yes Bill, Fair enough, I am with you, except, I am still answering QSL's being sent direct but without any postage.. Not as fast as with postage though. 73's Andrei EW1AR-NC2N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00065.html (11,209 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 05 Jan 2006 00:43:41 -0600
Not too long ago, I got a card from Japan. (with IRC enclosed) It said "PSE QSL FIRST USA". We don't come much less rare than that<grin>! -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00067.html (9,995 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Art RX9TX <rx9tx@qrz.ru>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:54:49 +0000
Hello Bill, Doug and Bill, thanks for LoTW-confirmations. Hope I can use them for WAS and USA-CA submissions one day. -- 73...Art RX9TX 05-Jan-06 06:52 UTC http://rx9tx.qrz.ru "Real knowledge is to k
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00068.html (10,805 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "Teemu, SM0WKA" <teemu@sm0wka.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:02:54 +0100
Bill isn't it in good hamspirit to answer those QSLs you receive? Why do we (the ham community) keep a QSL buro system if you can only obtain a QSL through the normal postal services at a much more e
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00076.html (11,614 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 05:23:33 -0800
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is the reason why LOTW was created. As of today, I have uploaded 52,288 QSOs to LOTW. If I've ever worked someone, the confirm
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00078.html (10,488 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: <steve@stevebb.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:27:47 -0000
I recently received a QSL card from stateside with a $10 bill enclosed - I was pretty chuffed until I realised the station was not in my logbook, that and the fact the propagation was not possible on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00079.html (10,341 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] R: QRP - Get Over It (score: 1)
Author: "LA5HE Ragnar Otterstad" <la5he@otterstad.dk>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:28:41 +0100
And yet I get tons of QSL cards through the buro. I simply don't answer them because I'm pretty sure the guy doesn't really need California for any imaginable award. My theory is he just cranks them
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-01/msg00080.html (10,065 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu