Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Re\:\s+Cabrillo\s+format\,\s+Dupes\,\s+NoQSO\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Re\:\s+Cabrillo\s+format\,\s+Dupes\,\s+NoQSO\'s\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Re: Cabrillo format, Dupes, NoQSO's (score: 1): Author: n6tr@teleport.com (n6tr@teleport.com); Date: Fri Sep 24 21:51:03 1999; It has been my opinion for the past 6 years that dupe penalties have no meaning for electronic logs. All of the log checking software I have done implements this concept. However, the problem of inc; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-09/msg00121.html (8,319 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Re: Cabrillo format, Dupes, NoQSO's (score: 1): Author: k2av@qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Fri Sep 24 19:29:53 1999; I had a look at the format. A BIG step forward. Wonderful. Question, though: What do we do to mark a log line as "DUPE" or "NO-QSO", so we don't get penalized for not marking dupes as dupes, or claim; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-09/msg00124.html (9,441 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Re: Cabrillo format, Dupes, NoQSO's (score: 1): Author: k2av@qsl.net (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Sun Sep 26 01:21:45 1999; Ok, I can deal with this method, except for one thing: In TRlog, or any of them I think, how do I "mark" a qso as incomplete during the contest in such a way that the POST program, or whatever, will; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-09/msg00128.html (8,039 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]