Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+CQWW\s+\-\s+RW9WA\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+CQWW\s+\-\s+RW9WA\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] CQWW - RW9WA (score: 1): Author: Uli_Stolz@t-online.de (Uli Stolz, DJ9XB); Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:02:30 +0000; Dear Contester ! I checked my log of this years CQWW. Last year many qsos were excluded from the score, because the zone of several russians OMs they gave were wrong. What is with RW9WA ? Zone 17 or; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-10/msg00100.html (6,693 bytes)
2. [RTTY] CQWW - RW9WA (score: 1): Author: UR5FFC" <ur5ffc@odessa.net (UR5FFC); Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 16:39:00 -0000; Hello Uli and others! Uli, You have got 3 points ~:) , RW9WA =Zone 17. Be sure. 73! de Kosta UR5FFC -- ?????????, ?? ?? ????? ????i !; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-10/msg00105.html (7,037 bytes)
3. [RTTY] CQWW - RW9WA (score: 1): Author: eu1sa@belsonet.net (Vladimir V. Sidorov); Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 18:23:34 +0300; Dear Uli, ????? Let me disagree with your statement. The what these guys were sending to you were wrong? It looks like, the situation is a bit different. The explanation we were given was like this:; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-10/msg00106.html (8,053 bytes)
4. [RTTY] CQWW - RW9WA (score: 1): Author: dk3vn@nexgo.de (Waldemar DK3VN); Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:47:56 +0200; Ohhh ... Vladimir .. you are so right! One little personal remark. If a UA9(S,W) station, like RW9WA, is sending CQ Zone 17 instead of 16, then the CQ/RJ committee don't believe it, but if (just an e; /archives//html/RTTY/2002-10/msg00109.html (9,249 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]