Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+\[VHF\]\s+VUCC\s+Card\s+Checking\s+Question\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Worsham" <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:37:55 -0500
Sorry Carl, but I am a card checker to and eQSL cards are not acceptable in any form or fashion. I have asked the VUCC desk and that is what I was told. I agree with you by the way but what you and I
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00193.html (11,229 bytes)

2. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: "Kutzko, Sean, KX9X" <kx9x@arrl.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:35:48 -0500
Gentlemen While I am not the ARRL Awards Manager, I am an active VHF'er and monitor these lists. I forwarded these questions to Bill Moore, NC1L, who is ARRL Awards Manager. (Eileen Sapko hasn't been
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00194.html (11,341 bytes)

3. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:23 -0600
Again, I apologize. I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. My only interest is in getting valid confirmations that will be accepted. To be honest, this thing fails the "common sense" test. How wou
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00198.html (14,832 bytes)

4. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: Sebastian <w4as@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:14:42 -0500
I don't feel it necessary for you to apologize for asking questions on a public reflector. Sure you can call the 'ARRL VUCC desk' and see who answers. When someone posts a question on here, and recei
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00199.html (9,447 bytes)

5. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Worsham" <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:39:40 -0500
So would I. Frankly, I can't imagine what could be a higher priority for any company/organization than providing services to its customers/members. After all, we are who pay the bills. 73 Jim, W4KXY
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00200.html (14,056 bytes)

6. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: R Johnson <k1vu@tmlp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:04:34 -0500
Absolute NO !!! If you want VUCC confirmations you must use "Hard Cards" or LoTW (when they finally get around to implementing VUCC) !!! eQSL's might as well be printed on "TP", and used as such. Whi
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00224.html (10,160 bytes)

7. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: Tom Carney <tomc@carneysugai.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:27:02 -0800
LOTW went live on Sept 15, 2003 or about. It's been over five years now and no support for VUCC. I've given up on ARRL upgrading LOTW to support VUCC. Maybe before the end of this sun spot cycle? eQS
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00225.html (10,388 bytes)

8. Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] VUCC Card Checking Question (score: 1)
Author: Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:08:13 -0700
I think ARRL learned the hard way that they're not a software company. Nate WY0X _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.c
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2009-01/msg00226.html (9,485 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu