Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[Packrats\]\s+Why\s+a\s+rule\s+discriminating\s+against\s+portable\s+stations\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[Packrats\]\s+Why\s+a\s+rule\s+discriminating\s+against\s+portable\s+stations\?\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] [Packrats] Why a rule discriminating against portable stations? (score: 1): Author: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:09:38 -0600; I dont know the answer to your question, but the VHF rules have kind of grown in a patchwork fashion over the years, so there are a some rules that dont make sense now when taken in the whole. I dont; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2023-06/msg00047.html (11,472 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] [Packrats] Why a rule discriminating against portable stations? (score: 1): Author: Alan Larson <wa6azp@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:14:21 -0700; This reply got way too long... I think it is the opposite. The rules are providing a benefit to rover stations, not discriminating against portable stations. Rover stations have been an area of diffi; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2023-06/msg00058.html (9,707 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]