Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[Mw\]\s+rant\:\s+rovers\s+vs\s+multi\-ops\s+on\s+limited\s+number\s+of\s+mountains\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[Mw\]\s+rant\:\s+rovers\s+vs\s+multi\-ops\s+on\s+limited\s+number\s+of\s+mountains\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] [Mw] rant: rovers vs multi-ops on limited number of mountains (score: 1): Author: "John D'Ausilio" <jdausilio@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 12:39:45 -0400; Excellent point, but remember that every grid is (relatively) sparsely populated when it comes to microwave activity. Is it more beneficial to the goals of the contest for an accessible hilltop to be; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-09/msg00011.html (11,509 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] [Mw] rant: rovers vs multi-ops on limited number of mountains (score: 1): Author: "Eric Smith" <kb7dqh@donobi.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 17:59:40 -0700; At least in the Pacific Northwest we have many thousands of mountaintops which don't get used by multiop contest stations, hundreds, perhaps thousands, per grid square, accessible by vehicle except i; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-09/msg00014.html (12,382 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] [Mw] rant: rovers vs multi-ops on limited number of mountains (score: 1): Author: John T Rose <ww1z_1@juno.com>; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 21:12:01 -0400; Outside of W2SZ and WB1GQR i can't think of any other New England multi-ops except those that own the place. Waschusetts in central Mass is still closed and Pack Monadnock has enough tree's to make m; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2011-09/msg00016.html (9,924 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]