Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+new\s+scoring\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WPX\s+new\s+scoring\.\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] WPX new scoring. (score: 1): Author: K3BU@aol.com (K3BU@aol.com); Date: Wed Mar 3 11:40:38 1999; I think it is a waste of "steam" discussing the "bad" change of having ONE lousy point for own country's QSOs. We went through considerable discussions over the subject last year and years before. Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00024.html (8,260 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] WPX new scoring. (score: 1): Author: froberts@pe.net (Fred Roberts); Date: Wed Mar 3 09:28:36 1999; Hi Have been following this thread, and have been surprised not to hear from a "special interest" group". That is, the guys who see how many Q's they can make and still achieve a score of zero points; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00025.html (6,812 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] WPX new scoring. (score: 1): Author: PaulKB8N@aol.com (PaulKB8N@aol.com); Date: Wed Mar 3 17:27:58 1999; Anyone who has operated WPX from Europe and USA realizes what a huge advantage the Eurpoeans have had in this contest. The new, one-point in-country QSOs may not make a huge difference, but I think i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-03/msg00033.html (7,247 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]