- 1. [CQ-Contest] random exchanges (score: 1)
- Author: CP2235@aol.com (CP2235@aol.com)
- Date: Wed Apr 28 16:11:23 1999
- yeah, what I say. And cross-check these exchanges as thorougly as you cross-check callsign nowadays. Sure makes for a better copying contest, unaffected by databases and stuff. Actually, if it was "m
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-04/msg00283.html (7,498 bytes)
- 2. [CQ-Contest] random exchanges (score: 1)
- Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Edward W. Sleight)
- Date: Wed Apr 28 23:57:01 1999
- Right. Then all the software will have to be rewriten, and the authors should certainly like that. With a few pesky sections like SCV, LAX, ORG, we'll throw out the other 70 plus and change it to he
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-04/msg00286.html (7,800 bytes)
- 3. [CQ-Contest] random exchanges (score: 1)
- Author: tim.k9tm@totalink.net (Tim Mitchell)
- Date: Wed Apr 28 22:20:36 1999
- VE9 I don't believe this statement to be true as written. I just went and looked on the ARRL web site again and do not find anything that says this. The only contest I know this to be a requirement f
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-04/msg00289.html (9,953 bytes)
- 4. [CQ-Contest] random exchanges (score: 1)
- Author: paul@ei5di.com (Paul O'Kane EI5DI)
- Date: Thu Apr 29 21:56:02 1999
- I go along with this. There should be someting unique in every exchange - where's the skill in sending 59100 or 5914 for every QSO? Why not vary RST? SD lets you vary RST Sent and will generate rando
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-04/msg00296.html (7,204 bytes)
- 5. [CQ-Contest] random exchanges (score: 1)
- Author: kn5h@zianet.com (KN5H)
- Date: Thu Apr 29 15:19:21 1999
- Are you sure about this? Looks like you may need to brush up on the rules too. de kn5h -- CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/ Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contest
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/1999-04/msg00297.html (6,992 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu