Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Using\s+a\s+Bogus\s+Check\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Using\s+a\s+Bogus\s+Check\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: al_lorona@agilent.com (al_lorona@agilent.com); Date: Fri Apr 26 19:34:32 2002; Hi, Everybody, I have a confession to make. A couple of SS's ago, I used a different check than my correct check. On purpose. I think I used something like '55' in the CW SS, and '00' in the phone SS; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00421.html (7,806 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: k0hb@earthlink.net (KØHB); Date: Sat Apr 27 04:11:56 2002; I looked in my checkbook, and every check has a different number. Copy what I sent *YOU*, not what I send someone else last year. 73, de Hans, K0HB; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00423.html (7,427 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: k5zd@charter.net (Randy Thompson, K5ZD); Date: Sat Apr 27 04:12:48 2002; Send anything you want! Just make sure you send the same thing to everyone you work and that you get it right in your log submission to ARRL (you would be surprised how often this doesn't happen). Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00424.html (9,167 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale L Martin); Date: Sat Apr 27 00:11:53 2002; Hey, Al, I'll copy as best I can whatever anyone sends me. It doesn't matter what you sent last year or the year before. What matters is what you send me now, that you report it as such, and that I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00425.html (7,414 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: k1ir@designet.com (Jim Idelson); Date: Sat Apr 27 10:24:04 2002; Al, How could you? This interpretation of the SS rules is highly irregular. Clearly, you have created an unfair advantage for yourself in using a Bogus Check. Don't underestimate the significance of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00430.html (8,135 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: kr6x@kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones); Date: Sun Apr 28 19:49:16 2002; I've been struggling over this one for the past two days. Here's my answer: If I were asked this question by the sponsors of the SS, I'd probably suggest that a liberal interpretation of the rules wa; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00447.html (11,423 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: al_lorona@agilent.com (LORONA,AL A-USA,ex3); Date: Mon Apr 29 15:10:03 2002; When I operated the (entire) SS with the 'bogus' check, I really didn't think about whether it would be an advantage or a disadvantage. I thought it would be a morally and contest-ually (sic) neutral; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00456.html (8,654 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: w7why@harborside.com (Tom Osborne); Date: Wed May 1 02:31:08 2002; Naw, "91" would be a great check. Same with "99." Just send "NA" or "NN." Then we could start the thread on cut numbers again. 73 Tom W7WHY; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-05/msg00008.html (6,086 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] Using a Bogus Check (score: 1): Author: n4bp@netzero.net (Bob Patten); Date: Wed May 1 04:00:31 2002; Hey why didn't I think of that before! I'm one of those "lucky 55ers" and I could have been taking even more advantage of it by sending "EE" all these years... :-) -- 73, Bob Patten, N4BP Plantation,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-05/msg00009.html (7,980 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]