Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+serious\s+question\s+clarification\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: mark@concertart.com (Mark Beckwith)
Date: Wed Jan 15 14:10:15 2003
I have received a number of responses basically saying "take the contact out" because "it's not a valid QSO." The implication is that if the other guy won't answer my request for fills then he deserv
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00164.html (8,833 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: c_hurlbut@adelphia.net (Chris Hurlbut)
Date: Wed Jan 15 14:18:57 2003
I would delete the QSO from my log, and hope the other guy doesn't get mad at me when he sees his UBN report. I would probably make a mental note to maybe dupe the guy later on just to make sure he d
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00168.html (10,274 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III - K5TR)
Date: Wed Jan 15 14:23:26 2003
Then keep it in your log and be more careful next time. -- George Fremin III - K5TR geoiii@kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00169.html (8,213 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: mark@concertart.com (Mark Beckwith)
Date: Wed Jan 15 16:42:27 2003
So I am guessing the answer to my question is there is not a way to do what I want. Either I take the hit for being an idiot or I impose the hit on the innocent guy. I don't like either option. Tree?
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00171.html (8,086 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III - K5TR)
Date: Wed Jan 15 21:00:20 2003
I will confess to saying the above. Yeah - well I guess we could go back to the old SS scoring and get one point for sending and one for receiving. None of the contests that I am familiar with have a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00180.html (9,401 bytes)

6. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com (Cqtestk4xs@aol.com)
Date: Thu Jan 16 07:56:23 2003
Since deleting the completed contact by the run station because of a computer glitch is a random act, it should affect all stations by the same percentage through random ocurrance. Although deleting
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00185.html (8,287 bytes)

7. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: mark@concertart.com (Mark Beckwith)
Date: Thu Jan 16 09:11:34 2003
I agree. I think mostly I'm skittish because of my personal situation. I was a decent, active operator up until about 1991, prior to the days of UBN reports (I got a benchmark because my logs were us
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00189.html (9,788 bytes)

8. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: k5ka@earthlink.net (Ken Adams K5KA)
Date: Thu Jan 16 09:18:25 2003
Well, he thinks it was a good QSO. So he should not be penalized. That is why the QSO should be left in your log. Is there a penalty involving the loss of additional QSO's for NAQP? If you only lose
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00190.html (9,310 bytes)

9. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: ww3s@zoominternet.net (WW3S)
Date: Thu Jan 16 16:26:50 2003
I guess I don't get it. If you don't log him, you lose the points. If you log him incorrectly, you lose the points. I don't think there is a penalty for having one more station in the UBN, is there?
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00202.html (10,667 bytes)

10. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: mark@concertart.com (Mark Beckwith)
Date: Fri Jan 17 14:00:25 2003
Hardly. It was due totally to my own stupidity, and presumably we are all not equally stupid. My guess is some of us are stupider than others. Therefore I think the statement: is not true...? Mark,
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00213.html (8,072 bytes)

11. [CQ-Contest] serious question clarification (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com (Cqtestk4xs@aol.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 07:04:50 2003
<< Hardly. It was due totally to my own stupidity, and presumably we are all not equally stupid. My guess is some of us are stupider than others. Therefore I think the statement: >> What I mean to sa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-01/msg00222.html (8,099 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu