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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:28:20 -0800 (PST); My QST just came... They are reviewing the IC-7800 again... Seems Icom discovered roofing filters and improved it's unbeatable, ne plus ultra, high dollar, ultimate, radio by adding a roofing filter.; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00376.html (7,266 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:37:46 -0800 (PST); They did figure out before others to add 6m to most HF rigs. 73s John W5TD ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yaho; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00377.html (7,790 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: "Eugene Klingler" <n8zx@hughes.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:41:50 -0500; _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00380.html (8,248 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: "Rick, NJ0IP / DJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:06:42 +0100; Yes John, and that little work of art caused the industry to move their first IF from 45 MHz, which was already bad enough, up to 70 MHz, which is even worse. As a result, it's even more difficult to; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00382.html (8,131 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: "John Vickers" <wa4tt@nlamerica.com>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:37:36 -0500; Most serious HFers and VHFers view that as a compromise. Give me a radio or converter thats designed for its freq of use. I can use my old Super Pro for SWLing or my scanner to listen on the upper ba; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00383.html (7,872 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: Clark Savage Turner <csturner@kcbx.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:53:26 -0800; On an engineering note, I don't need to bash the other manufacturers with sarcasm regarding their engineering talent. Last time I was at Ten Tec, the engineers there had nothing but respect for the J; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00406.html (8,660 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:45:21 -0500; Yes John, but Ten-Tec has QSK! (Oh yeah, I see over on the other list that you knew that... so I promise not to bring up great service, either...) 73 They did figure out before others to add 6m to mo; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00408.html (9,348 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>; Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:20:14 -1000; "but Ten-Tec has QSK!" Recalling a discussion on this reflector, or perhaps it was the CW reflector, a couple of years back, I must say that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that my Omni VI has; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00411.html (8,954 bytes)
9. [TenTec] ARRL (score: 1): Author: Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:34:15 -0800 (PST); Well, I find the QSK on the Omni 6+ to actually seem a bit clunky compared to the O2... denny / k8do -- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________; /archives//html/TenTec/2007-02/msg00415.html (6,442 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]